Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have an article entitled Google’s AI Profit Fast Tracks Singularity Prediction by Anthony Cuthbertson, published on March 13, 2024. In the article, Cuthbertson reports that futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts artificial intelligence will usher in an era of hybrid humans. This prediction aligns with Kurzweil’s long-standing views. However, he now asserts that this era will begin within the next five years, specifically referring to the ability of these hybrid humans to reverse aging.
Despite this new timeline, Kurzweil maintains his original prediction of a technological singularity occurring in 2045, as stated in his 2005 forecasts. I want to focus on this accelerated five-year timeline for reversing aging. Kurzweil’s claim suggests that by 2029, humanity will have the capacity to reverse aging. This statement, however, warrants further scrutiny and clarification.
Rick Rosner: The prediction appears overly optimistic. Aubrey de Grey, with his distinctive beard, has identified seven major types of damage that must be addressed to overcome aging. These include issues like preventing mitochondrial dysfunction. This approach is part of a specific and detailed strategy, which raises my skepticism about Kurzweil’s statement, as it lacks similar specifics. I assume that, if pressed, Kurzweil might elaborate by referencing de Grey’s framework or a comparable system. However, aging is a complex process involving multiple interconnected systems. This realization is perhaps the most crucial insight, one that may have been speculative in the past.
An important point is that different systems within the body age at varying rates due to numerous factors. Aging is not a singular process but rather a multitude of concurrent ones. Fundamentally, human evolution has equipped us to live long enough to reproduce, and anything beyond that is essentially a bonus. We fall apart because our protective mechanisms are only sufficient to ensure the survival of the next generation. Therefore, anything that can fail eventually will, as our evolutionary design only pushes survival far enough to facilitate reproduction. Beyond that, we are simply waiting for one system or another to deteriorate.
When discussing systems, one could refer to organs, mitochondria, the Hayflick limit (the number of times a cell can replicate), or the accumulation of malfunctioning cells. Each represents a potential point of failure, showcasing the many pathways by which aging progresses. Thus, the question arises: what would reversing aging entail? Extending the number of cellular replications, known as surpassing the Hayflick limit, could be one part of it.
However, unlimited cell reproduction poses the risk of cancer, as uncontrolled replication is a hallmark of the disease. Reversing aging would also involve eliminating accumulated damage in the body, such as arterial plaque, heart valve calcification, and other degenerative changes. Would it mean reversing conditions like osteoporosis? Addressing these varied aspects of aging is complex but not entirely out of reach. There are some general solutions, such as extending the cellular replication limit, alongside targeted treatments for specific body parts.
While reversing aging is theoretically conceivable, achieving it involves addressing numerous specific and general challenges.
Getting the gunk out of your arteries and heart, restoring a full head of hair, and plumping the skin — I can envision some progress happening within a five-year window, but nowhere close to a level where one could definitively claim that aging has been reversed. Does that sound reasonable?
Rick Rosner: Just a note: if you want, I can provide a general preface that, for the past several months, 85 to 92% of my tweets have been political. I’m deeply concerned about the possibility of a second Donald Trump presidency. The election is tight, and I’m doing what I can through tweets to dissuade voters from supporting Trump. If that doesn’t work, I’m trying to motivate undecided or less active voters to support Kamala Harris.
She’s not perfect, and I don’t think she’s a genius, but she’s competent. I want sane governance, which we didn’t have under Trump, and it would be even worse in a second term. The Supreme Court has expanded presidential powers with less accountability, and Trump has made it clear he plans to act vengefully. He’s rid himself of people who could temper his behavior, and I believe he’ll be surrounded by enablers, making his second term “Trump squared.”
That’s why my tweets have been less humorous lately and more urgent. Also, I’m Jewish, and while Trump has never explicitly said he admires Hitler, he has expressed a disturbing interest in him. He reportedly has a copy of Mein Kampfand has said he wished his generals were more like Hitler’s. It’s unsettling.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I enjoy some conservative-leaning comedy, especially when it’s framed as dry, relatable humor. Dry Bar Comedy is a good example—clean, family-friendly, with traditional values. Many of those comedians are skilled, funny storytellers.
Rick Rosner: You’ve got Jeff Foxworthy with his “You might be a redneck” bits—funny and relatable.
Jacobsen: Tim Allen, Jeff Allen, and Larry the Cable Guy are others.
Rosner: There’s even a comedy roundup channel on SiriusXM that caters to more rural, conservative audiences, and it’s quality stuff.
Jacobsen: Your humor is a bit edgier, leans a little more PG-13 or higher.
Rosner: I get bored with the clean stuff after a while. SiriusXM has about six or seven comedy channels, so you can pick your level of “blueness.” There’s a channel called “Pure Comedy,” where you’ll never hear a bad word or controversial topics. On the other end is “Raw Comedy,” which features content more akin to the shock value of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint—a novel that stunned America in the 1960s by exploring taboo areas of a teenage boy’s life.
“Raw Comedy,” it’s more unfiltered and covers topics that mainstream comedy often avoids. I was thinking how even Philip Roth, the master of shocking content, would be taken aback by some of the routines on raw comedy today. No area of life is safe from comedic analysis now, which is quite a shift from the more restrained world of network TV in the sixties.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I was doing a training session in journalism and came across a cool concept I hadn’t heard of before: pre-bunking. It’s like inoculating people by giving them bits of misinformation and having them reflect on it. Think of it like when you look at an AI-generated image and notice the teeth are off or it has four fingers with an extra joint.
Rick Rosner: Yes, if we had done this with Trump ahead of time, it could have changed things. Instead, we did the opposite of pre-bunking with him. He had a TV show that portrayed him as a business genius, which ran for 15 years. It was all an illusion, but it built this image.
If people had been told the truth about some of Trump’s actions back in 2015 or 2016, before they bought into the persona, it might have reduced his base. Now, no matter what he does, his base finds ways to rationalize or justify it. I remember learning about advertising in 6th grade—there was a one-week section on the ways ads mislead, which instilled some skepticism. Plus, growing up with Mad Magazine, which mocked everything, was another way to build that kind of mental defense.
But now, Trump’s supporters—30 to 40 million of them—are impervious to everything. I assume they fall for scams related to donations or Trump merchandise, but outside of the Trump bubble, they might be less gullible. Within that sphere, though, they’re immune to debunking or pre-bunking or any form of critical thinking.
Rick Rosner: Ever heard of Albert Beckles? If you Google him, you’ll see that he was a successful bodybuilder for a long time. I used to go to Gold’s Gym in North Hollywood, where he worked out.
He’d still be ripped even in his mid-seventies. He’d be there with his girlfriend, who was also in her seventies. It looked a little odd because there was an African American guy in his seventies with a shaved head, 4% body fat, and 18 or 19-inch biceps, looking incredibly fit—unlike a 75-year-old. Meanwhile, his girlfriend looked her age at 72. It created a bit of a visual mismatch.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Like a Cher or Madonna situation?
Rosner: No, it seemed more like they had been together for 30 years and stayed committed. It’s like when you see the wives of some Hollywood celebrities—it can be striking. Sam Elliott comes to mind. He’s got to be around 75 now. He’s the deep-voiced narrator from The Big Lebowski and is known for playing cowboy roles. He’s had that great silvery hair for decades. Even at 75, he still looks like Sam Elliott with all his hair. But then you see him at a premiere with his wife, a pleasant-looking woman in her seventies, and it stands out because he still has that movie star allure while she looks her age.
Male movie stars retain that appeal as they age as quickly as others do. Harrison Ford is 80 and was still playing Indiana Jones. Tom Selleck from Blue Bloods is 79 and still has all his hair. He’s even selling reverse mortgages and still looks convincing.
On Blue Bloods, he plays the head of the NYPD well into his late seventies. I don’t watch the show, but it’s funny because I’m pretty sure the actual retirement age for the police department is around 65. But Selleck can still pass for 65 at 79. I don’t know what his wife looks like, but probably not as culturally revered as Selleck himself.
Speaking of Selleck, here’s a story before we wrap up. I worked on The Man Show, which satirized men’s behaviours while simultaneously appealing to the same audience. They had a segment called “Manly Advice from Tom Selleck’s Penis,” which featured a puppet shaped like a penis giving advice. They asked Tom Selleck for permission to use his name, and he responded, “Please don’t. My daughter is in junior high school, and it would be hard for her if my talking penis were on T.V.” So, we ended up using someone else’s name.
There’s this misconception that conservatives can’t get work in Hollywood. It’s not true. It’s just that conservatives who are difficult to work with don’t get work. Tom Selleck is a conservative; he’s NRA-affiliated, but he’s probably a delight on set—he knows his lines and hits his cues, which is not a problem. Even The Rock is conservative. If you Google conservative celebrities, you’ll find hundreds of them. The ones who are likable and professional still get work.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Has anything else come up for you recently, election stuff?
Rick Rosner: Yes, we’ve got 12 days to go. The good news is that around 5 million people are voting each day. This is positive because early voters typically lean Democratic. In 2020, Trump told his supporters not to vote early and to vote on election day instead—I forget his logic behind that. This year, though, he has given the green light to early voting, so there’s a more significant MAGA presence in early voting. Even so, with 5 million votes daily, we could see close to 80 million early votes by election day, which is promising.
Rosner: How does that compare to past years?
Jacobsen: In 2016, 58 million people voted early, and Hillary Clinton lost. In 2020, 101 million people voted early due to COVID-19, which made voting more accessible, and Biden won. This year, it’ll be around 80 million early votes. It’s not as high as in 2020, but it’s still significant, especially considering that Republicans disliked the huge turnout of 160 million total voters—two-thirds of eligible voters, which was unprecedented. Historically, higher turnout benefits Democrats, so Republicans passed laws restricting early voting. If we reach 80 million early voters, that’s a positive sign.
Jacobsen: What about voting demographics?
Rosner: In the six states that track voting by gender, women are outvoting men by 10%, with a ratio of 55 to 45. That’s good because women generally favour Harris over Trump, whereas men lean the other way. If this trend holds, it’s another positive sign. So, Rotten Tomatoes on voting updates.
Jacobsen: What else is on your mind?
Rosner: I hit a local maximum on the bench press machine today. This guy, Luke, talks a lot, and we chat, which gives me extra time to recover between sets. That extra rest allows me to lift more weight. Because of COVID, I’ve been doing quick sets with minimal rest to quickly get in and out of the gym.
Jacobsen: So, did you hit a new personal best?
Rosner: It’s more of a small victory. I weighed about 139 pounds and pushed 185 pounds, roughly 130% of my body weight. For someone as skinny as I am, that’s decent enough. But honestly, who cares? I’m 64 years old.
Rick Rosner: What about gold in the universe? Let’s shift to that. An idea in informational cosmology suggests the universe is far older than its supposed Big Bang age. If that’s true, then there should be remnants in the universe that predate it—leftover matter that has remained due to being gravitationally or inertially isolated.
That connects to the rotation curves of galaxies. The issue with Kepler’s law is that if most of the mass in a galaxy or a solar system is concentrated at the center, the orbital speed of objects should drop sharply as you move farther from the center, following a power law. But the rotation curve of entire galaxies is flatter than expected, which hints at dark matter or other unexplained phenomena holding things together.
It’s as if there’s a significant amount of mass near the outskirts of galaxies, causing them to rotate more like a disk, where the speed doesn’t drop off as much as expected. This implies the presence of some mysterious mass—dark matter—that makes these rotation curves appear flatter. The catch is that we can’t directly see this mass.
Alternative theories suggest that under certain conditions, gravity might not decline according to the inverse-square law. But that’s harder for contemporary physics to accept than the concept of dark matter. Informational cosmology, however, posits that dark matter could be regular collapsed matter: black holes, brown dwarfs, neutron stars—all of which may have collapsed long ago and are now in stable orbits on the outskirts of galaxies.
And they wouldn’t remain stable if they were closer to the center of a galaxy. If they were near the center, they’d collide with other matter, suck it up, and gradually move inward over billions of years until they became part of the massive black hole at the galactic core. For the Milky Way, that black hole is around 100 million solar masses, though it could be a billion solar masses in some galaxies.
However, these collapsed objects can orbit on the outskirts without significant collisions. So, if the universe is older than it appears, you’d expect to find a lot of old, burnt-out, collapsed matter in the far reaches of galaxies. The challenge is that this matter is nearly invisible. You can only detect black holes through gravitational lensing unless they pull in the material, emitting radiation as it spirals into the black hole.
But an ancient, inactive black hole is difficult to spot. Could we find evidence for an older universe by detecting more gravitational lensing than expected in a 14-billion-year-old universe?
That’s the question. Does enough collapsed matter in the far reaches of the universe cause a detectable difference in gravitational lensing? I’m still determining. I’d need to ask someone who specializes in astrophysics. But the challenge is that any evidence of matter older than the universe would be hard to spot because it’s no longer emitting much radiation.
If we could somehow determine how much gold or other heavy elements beyond iron exist in the universe, that might tell us something. You’d need to analyze the spectra of stars or other methods to figure that out, though I’m not sure how that works. I’ve seen articles suggesting that there’s more gold in the universe than could have been formed within 14 billion years.
It raises the question of how precise these methods are for measuring the abundance of heavy elements and whether they truly support the idea of an older universe or if there’s some other explanation.
Rick Rosner: So, I will talk about gold—not just its value, but the fact that there’s more gold in the universe than expected according to the standard Big Bang theory. The heaviest element that can form during the normal stellar burning process involves hydrogen fusing into helium, releasing heat. Under gravitational pressure, helium and thermal motion at the center of a star can fuse to create lithium and other elements up to iron. Iron limits what can be formed in a typical burning star.
When the star runs out of energy, if it’s big enough, it collapses. That collapse triggers an immense explosion, a supernova, with enough compressive action at the center to form gold. It’s a rare occurrence.
Another theory is that gold can be created when two neutron stars collide. Either way, the process is sporadic and violent, creating conditions that are “explodey and crush,” as you put it, and capable of producing gold. Yet, we have more gold than one would expect.
It’s rare and valuable, but having a significant amount of it is intriguing. And it’s not just gold—all elements heavier than iron, number 26 on the periodic table, are produced in these extreme events. The universe is about 14 billion years old, and there’s more of this heavy stuff than basic physics might suggest.
That’s the physics and cosmic background of gold. Now, on a more personal note, I used to work with gold.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How so?
Rosner: In 1989, my wife got a job at Avon in New York City. We weren’t married yet; we were living together then. She started to become increasingly disgusted by New York City. It was covered with every bodily fluid you could think of—barf, urine, and even worse things. There was always this pervasive hot garbage smell, and she was disgusted with it.
Jacobsen: I can imagine. New York can be intense.
Rosner: Avon happened to own Giorgio Beverly Hills, which, in the 1980s, was quite famous—this was during the prime-time soap opera era with shows like Dallas. There was a sense of Beverly Hills glamour that was popular then. Giorgio had a fragrance line and some fashion items.
So, Carole wanted to move back to L.A. She’s originally from L.A., so she wanted to return. Avon owned Giorgio Beverly Hills, and she got a job there. Giorgio had grown from a small company to a medium-sized one as it gained popularity. It was making some of her coworkers behave in a rather catty way. Carole would come home and say that some women were flaunting knock-off Chanel suits and cocktail rings. This was back when jewelry and fashion accessories were a much bigger deal.
And she felt intimidated. At the time, I was mostly unemployed. I was working odd jobs: bouncing at bars, nude modelling for art classes, and tutoring for the SAT. All of them are pretty low-paying. My days were mostly free, so I started looking into making jewelry for her. I researched and found that we couldn’t afford fancy store-bought jewelry, but we could buy the materials for about 10% of the retail price. For instance, you could get large gemstones like blue topaz, citrine, and amethyst for about a dollar per carat because they had minor chips or imperfections. Those are the stones that manufacturers chip during production.
Companies like QVC would commission thousands of rings to be made in Mexico by semi-skilled labourers, and some stones would get chipped in the process. These slightly damaged stones were then sold at a discount so I could get large stones, some the size of a pigeon egg, for around $50. I signed up for a jewelry class at a junior college to access their equipment for soldering and started making pieces for Carole. It was fun to give her extravagant-looking jewelry that didn’t cost much, allowing her to keep up with the other stylish women at work.
Jacoben: That’s a clever way to approach it.
Rosner: I got into it and even learned about lost-wax casting. I started making more intricate pieces, which meant I needed to buy or find gold. I learned about buying gold at spot price and melt price. Gold was around $800 an ounce back then, which was expensive. I would buy a quarter-ounce piece for a couple of hundred dollars and then mix it with silver and copper to stretch it, lowering it from 24-karat gold.
Jacoben: So, you were creating lower-karat gold?
Rosner: Yes, I was so thrifty that I made 5-karat gold. It still looked gold enough because I would add more copper to give it a richer, orangey tone. Even at five karats, it had a discernible golden look. I also learned that the professional markup is about 1% when buying gold for jewelry. When you sell scrap gold back, there’s a markdown of about 1%.
And it’s accepted as long as the scrap gold has a designated carat value, like 14-karat—which is 7/12ths pure gold. I did that for a while, but then I started getting T.V. writing work and stopped making jewelry because I finally had stable employment. With my kid getting married, I thought about the scrap gold we still have lying around.
And I thought, why don’t we sell the scrap gold, which belonged to beloved relatives, and use that money to buy wedding rings for our kid and her fiancé? It’s a way to repurpose cherished gold that’s no longer in fashion from people who have passed on into new gold that will hopefully be worn for decades until death do them part. So, we went to the coin shop, and they weighed the gold. Gold is now $27,100 an ounce, which translates to around $33,100 Canadian.
That’s extremely expensive, but not surprising, given the state of the world. Is this interesting? I think so—it’s compelling in a personal way.
So they offered us 80% of the value of the gold. I thought, what? That’s wild. But they said it’s because it’s scrap, and some 14-karat gold is only about 12.5-karat. It seemed like a bad deal, so I asked if they could at least give us 83%. They agreed, and we walked away with a few hundred dollars for the scrap gold.
I know that feeling—walking out after a negotiation and realizing hours later that you might not have haggled hard enough.
I even returned to a car dealership the next day to confront them because they ripped me off. They told me, “Get out of here; you bought the car.” I realize I might have gotten a bad deal hours after it happens when it’s too late. I probably got shortchanged this time, too. But at least I still got paid at about $22,162 per ounce, which is still a substantial amount.
Carole has this habit where she’s not exactly delighted when I’m wrong, but she does point it out. I told her we’d probably get around 96% of the spot price based on my call to the shop, where they mentioned offering $26,100 for a Krugerrand when the spot price was $27,100. But in reality, they offered us only 80%. Carole couldn’t help but say, “You were wrong,” which she seemed a little too pleased about. And that’s the end.
Rick Rosner: Speaking of something related but different, it’s less than two weeks until the election—12 days to be exact. Everyone’s on edge, waiting for any October surprises. This is a new topic.
Perhaps the big October surprise concerning Trump could be some footage of him groping a teenager at a public event. There’s a lot of buzz about it, but no one has actually seen the video yet. My guess is that there are plenty of photos and videos of Biden that MAGA supporters point to, claiming he’s acting inappropriately. It’s typically footage of him bending down to hug a little girl or embracing a grown woman for a couple of seconds, and they spin it as predatory behavior.
So, if there is this so-called “smoking gun” of Trump groping a teen, it could just be a clip of him hugging someone for a few seconds, exaggerated to seem worse. We’re waiting to see if such a video even exists. And if it does, and it’s truly incriminating—like showing actual inappropriate behavior—how many votes would that cost him?
That’s the current situation. Everyone is hoping for some damning revelation. Trump, in the hopeful eyes of many liberals, seems to be struggling right now. He mispronounces words frequently, and while I don’t have an exact figure, he appears mentally sloppy.
You could argue that anyone at 78, especially after intense campaigning for months, would show signs of fatigue. But for hopeful liberals, they’re watching for any meltdown. Ideally, for them, he’d have a visible health issue, like a seizure, which would be alarming for someone seeking the presidency. Not that I wish that, but something significant.
Rick Rosner: So, we were talking about people being glued to their phones. I’m not sure if it’s as bad in semi-rural Canada as it is in L.A., or in places like Hong Kong. Carole and I were in Hong Kong 30 years ago.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was that like?
Rosner: Back then, it was surprising to see people already walking around with two cell phones—a level of tech engagement that was pretty advanced for 1993. Who knows what technology people in Hong Kong and Singapore are plugged into now? But if we were to predict what having access to all the apps and information in the world would do to people starting from, say, 1985, some would have thought it would make everyone super savvy and highly competent at life’s tasks. Others might have predicted what we see now: people who are incredibly distracted.
As we move into the future, it seems like we’re heading towards becoming more closely linked to the information processing done by our devices. We’re still limited by the fact that all our input comes through our senses and all our output is either talking to or typing on our phones. But as we become more integrated with our tech, one of the big questions is whether our devices will be kind to our sense of consciousness.
Jacobsen: We tend to think that our consciousness tells a coherent story of our lives, moment to moment and day to day. That we’re playing out our own human experience and that it makes sense, rolling along in a continuous way.
Rosner Because we’re accustomed to our own flavor of consciousness, we tend to overlook the discontinuities, contradictions, and lost information. We’re generally comfortable with the way we think, unless something forces us to examine it—like when our brain starts breaking down due to dementia, which is incredibly distressing. Our experience of consciousness is optimized for the mental resources we have. Our brains have limited capacities, but we’ve evolved to use those capacities in highly efficient ways. When we start becoming more integrated with our devices, those devices won’t necessarily follow the rules of our consciousness.
Devices might misuse our cognitive processes, even while providing pleasure. In the novel I’m writing, the main character is involved in showbiz, among other things. I’ve outlined a number of speculative TV shows, musical acts, movies, and hybrid projects of the future. One concept is a movie that’s a blend of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Philip K. Dick’s Ubik, where the protagonist lives in an artificial reality designed for wish fulfillment. He uses VR and brain implant technology to return to his twenties and relive his youth in a more idealized way.
So, he’s immersed in a world where he’s the best version of himself. He becomes the epitome of his younger self—cool, desirable, competent, and witty. But he stays in this virtual world so long that it starts to deteriorate, and he begins to experience glitches. The tech won’t allow for an exact recreation of the reality he’s fallen in love with, and he’s fighting to stay in it even as things break down around him.
Jacobsen: How does the breakdown happen?
Rosner: The movie follows his perspective, showing his cool and composed life until things go wrong. His brain starts glitching, and the hardware and software supporting the world start to falter. Meanwhile, people from the real world try to intervene, making increasingly forceful attempts to pull him out for his own good, but he resists. As the story progresses, you see reality being tampered with more and more.
Jacobsen: I can see parallels between that and how our devices influence our reality now. Do you think we’ll reach a point where these tech interventions become so enticing that they distort our consciousness?
Rosner: We may face scenarios where interventions from our devices or VR environments are so compelling that they disrupt our perception of reality and our way of thinking. Some people might even let the interface and the device take over most of their cognitive functions. If the device is ever disconnected, their sense of consciousness could become so fragmented that they need specialized interventions—again, involving a device—to restore their thinking patterns to normal.
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating and troubling idea. It raises important questions about how dependent we could become and what that would mean for our consciousness and autonomy. The brain is a structure and an organ, so adding any intervention could eventually be as simple as subtly adjusting the pathways. This could be done through methods that don’t even require physical contact, just a “massaging” of neural pathways to align them with what we call mental health, defined by behavior, output, and internal states. And that’s if we’re the ones controlling the interventions.
Rosner: If AI and our devices become powerful enough, not everything they do to or with us will be for our benefit. It might be for the benefit of some collective or even a dominant, dictatorial entity.
It reminds me of The Matrix, which, in some ways, had a silly premise. The idea of people living in an artificial reality so that alien beings could extract psychic energy from them was a weak narrative. Maybe the writers considered other explanations but chose that one because it was simpler for storytelling. That was the flawed part of the concept. But the part that wasn’t flawed was the notion that people would willingly live in artificial realities because they’re incredibly appealing. I can imagine people, especially those driven by desires, wanting to immerse themselves in a reality that’s 20% like a porn movie, where everyone is always receptive and eager.
I can see some people wanting to live in a world where every interaction goes exactly as they wish, with full consent at every turn. The fidelity of this artificial reality could vary—some might choose more realistic settings while others might opt for more fantastical versions. There could even be scenarios where some people simulate real-life environments, interacting with digital representations of their actual coworkers in inappropriate ways.
It’s like how immersion in other experiences can alter perception. Have you ever played Tetris for an extended period?
Jacobsen: Yes, I have.
Rosner: After playing Tetris for an hour and then stepping outside, everything can start to look blocky. Your perception is influenced by the game. For about 20 minutes after a long session, my perception of the world would have this “blocky” or “Minecraft-like” quality. It’s been a while since I’ve experienced it, but I remember that distinct shift.
t’s similar with smut or adult content. If I’ve spent an hour looking at that material, I need to consciously remind myself not to see people in a sexualized way when I go back out into the world. It shows that if we create and inhabit virtual worlds that closely mirror reality, some people will use them to indulge personal fantasies, turning life into their own private, continuous experience where real-world figures are involved without consent.
It implies that the blending of virtual and real experiences could shift our behavior and perception in ways we’re not fully prepared for. It doesn’t have to be catastrophic, but on the other hand, it might not be great for people either.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: By the way, what would the surface area of the Earth be if it were laid out flat in two dimensions?
Rick Rosner: The Earth’s total surface area is roughly 200 million square miles, with land making up about 50 million square miles.
Jacobsen: That seems close enough. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s in the ballpark. That’s a massive experimental ground for evolutionary change—testing what works and what doesn’t.
Humans evolved as a type of “machine” in that environment. We’ve been subjected to nature’s research and development—evolution by natural selection and other mechanisms—for a long time.
Nature’s R&D is a powerful concept. Evolution shapes us through countless pressures, from environmental factors to interactions with other species. Even Bakunin wrote about this—though not directly on evolution, he touched on themes related to nature and adaptation. If you took a square with 1,000 miles on each side, it would roughly represent the total land area of Earth.
All of this shows how complex and multi-dimensional the pressures on us have been—pressures from our environment, other species, and even within our own species, pushing us to adapt in different ways.
Eye color, height, hair color—those are the surface-level traits. But they’re still part of change. The vast amount of minute pressures on us, including those affecting our immune systems, means that becoming a different species would require significant differentiation across numerous factors, many of which we don’t have a systematic catalog for.
But there’s currently no substantial environmental pressure pushing us towards significant differentiation. You could argue for something like societal stability as an influence, since that aids productivity. People now live on coasts and in varied environments.
Cultural evolution is happening much faster than biological evolution, so evolutionary changes can’t keep pace. We see racial differences, which are relatively superficial adaptations. For instance, people who move north may have lighter skin due to lower melanin levels, while those who stay near the equator maintain darker skin. But even those changes are relatively minor.
The focus on such changes tends to reflect cultural biases. Some societies may emphasize cognitive skills, like memorization or numerical abilities, over physical traits. But even those are relatively simple adaptations.
Even those traits have multiple genetic dimensions, it involves which genes need to be upregulated or downregulated, often through epigenetic mechanisms. These subtle variations show just how little we have truly explored. It feels as though we aren’t even at the tip of the iceberg yet.
Rosner: Once our brains grew larger, changes accelerated so rapidly that further biological evolution couldn’t keep up. Our development essentially bypassed the typical evolutionary timeline. Our physical traits also adapted—our genitals grew larger, women developed prominent breasts to attract male attention as much from the front as from the back. We lost body hair because once clothing was invented, there was no longer pressure to maintain fur. Preferences for less hairy partners could reflect a bias towards neoteny, as humans are drawn to youthful features like big eyes, round faces, and minimal body hair.
That makes sense. The preference for youthful traits could be linked to health and fertility indicators. People are naturally less inclined to seek older mates, as youth is associated with reproductive health. But beyond that, not much else underwent drastic change.
We adapted for better upright walking, though it came with physical problems that we still face today. But when it comes to phones and modern technology, they mimic the types of information we evolved to seek.
Phones provide stimulation that taps into our evolved desires for information, social interaction, and novelty. But we need to think about how this affects us long-term. We know we’re likely to become less intelligent compared to our devices, but there are probably aspects of this that we haven’t fully considered.
Rick Rosner: I read something interesting and assume it’s true. When you observe dogs—adorable, yes, but not particularly brilliant compared to wolves—it makes sense. I haven’t been around wolves, but they are known to be quite intelligent. The idea is that when wolves were domesticated, humans’ sense of smell weakened while wolves’ cognitive abilities atrophied, evolving into the modern dog. It was a trade-off: humans did the thinking for dogs, and dogs took on the role of sniffing for us.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s an interesting take. It’s a symbiotic relationship, isn’t it?
Rosner: Yes, and if you think about it, you can extend that idea to smartphones. One of the gyms I go to is in an outdoor shopping center. You can see people zombified, wandering around glued to their phones. About 15 or 20 years ago, Stephen King wrote Cell, which was about a signal emitted from cell phones that turned people into deranged killers. It reminds me of that scene where people are so absorbed in their phones that they’re oblivious to everything around them. It makes me wonder if smartphones are making us less intelligent. But, of course, that’s something that needs deeper examination and context.
Jacobsen: Does that make any sense? It’s worth exploring.
Rosner: Because our brain is, according to current theory, constantly occupied with preparing us for the next moment. It helps us optimize our chances of survival, not just moment by moment, but over the course of our lives, so that we generally do as well as we can in the world. It’s hard to transition from that to cell phones truly optimizing our lives. Sure, they’re helpful with many things, but they’re also majorly distracting.
So, then you have to consider the “deliciousness” argument, which suggests that when we were on the savannah, we evolved instincts to identify what was beneficial for survival. We developed preferences for salty, sweet, and fatty foods because those were advantageous when found in the wild. People who had these tastes likely survived better. Now, with unlimited food availability, those tastes can work against us. I think it’s similar with smartphones, social media, or digital information. The data we get might or might not help with survival, but it taps into evolved instincts that make it seem “delicious” to us. It mirrors the type of information that could have been useful on the savannah.
So, we’re drawn to animal videos, for example. We find cute animals incredibly appealing and are fascinated when animals show unexpected behavior or befriend each other.
Jacobsen: Does that tap into something from our evolutionary past, where paying attention to animals on the savannah was beneficial?
Rosner: It might seem a bit far-fetched, but we also love gossip and knowing where we fit within the social order. Much of what comes through on our phones mimics that information. It’s more plausible that interacting with personalized information, even if it doesn’t directly help us thrive, feels valuable because of its personal relevance. What do you think?
Jacobsen: I view the brain as an adaptive engine, a somewhat fluid structure. It has a lot of ingrained behaviors, but there are critical windows, like the language learning period during early development, where certain functions become fixed. Some parts of the brain are highly specialized—like how some areas essentially become the “eyes.”
There is a case to be made for the idea that bringing other species into our sphere and using our senses differently—perhaps not atrophying them, but dulling them—over time is significant. However, there’s also an argument that humans haven’t genetically changed enough in the last 100,000 to 250,000 years to undergo significant speciation.
We could still reproduce with someone from 100,000 years ago, which suggests that our sensory system is fundamentally the same, even if the context has changed enough to dull its sharpness. It could be a social adaptation with another species, like dogs or horses, where certain traits become amplified and others reduced. For instance, people who ride horses develop strong upper bodies because of the need to control the reins constantly.
So, managing a horse burns a lot of calories, and there’s also the work involved in cleaning stalls or other chores. Even if you’re a trainer, you need significant strength to manage a horse, period. So, certain physical attributes will naturally be amplified. It’s like all human attributes are positioned at the center of a multi-dimensional polygon—one with many, many dimensions.
It could be two-dimensional or even three-dimensional. It doesn’t really matter. Each trait extends along its own axis, pointing out to different edges of that polygon.
Certain traits will be strengthened or weakened, but there’s a general line of best fit through all these different traits within the polygon. For example, someone like Usain Bolt is exceptional at short-distance running and exhibits certain traits, like height, that contribute to that. But he might not necessarily be better than average in terms of smell or vision. However, that almost becomes irrelevant since there’s very little evolutionary pressure on humans these days; we’ve mastered our environment to such an extent that reproduction isn’t tightly linked to physical fitness.
You might argue that certain types of fitness are still favored, and we could try to analyze that, but most people can raise a family without needing exceptional physical traits. It’s a light evolutionary drift when you consider how much more comfortable life has been over the last 12,000 years, especially with the advent of agriculture and modern plumbing.
Tall parents tend to have tall kids, and smart parents often have smart kids, but that’s not speciation—it’s minor variation within the same species. I’m trying to see where this fits in with the idea that there’s so little moment-to-moment survival pressure that we can afford to ignore our surroundings and get lost in our phones.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s move on. I wanted to ask—what’s up with this $1 million-a-day deal that Musk is doing?
Rick Rosner: So, Musk, when he bought Twitter nearly two years ago, really revealed himself to be somewhat of a fraud in certain ways. Yet, he still has strong supporters. The crypto enthusiasts love him, the Tesla fans love him, and those interested in Mars colonization support him too. But he’s very chaotic. He’s smart, sure, but he’s scattered. He’s also thrown his support behind Trump.
Jacobsen: And that’s cost him quite a bit, hasn’t it?
Rosner: Yes, you could argue that it’s cost him more than $30 billion. He paid $44 billion for Twitter, but it’s now thought to be worth less than $12 billion as of six months ago. It’s probably even less valuable now, so he could be down close to $35 billion. On top of that, he’s contributed at least $75 million to Trump-aligned political action committees. But as the world’s richest man, he can afford it.
Jacobsen: What’s this lottery deal about?
Rosner: Musk has been offering $1 million a day to one individual, chosen from those who sign a pledge to support the First and Second Amendments. This runs until the election, and it targets voters in Pennsylvania. However, offering financial incentives tied to political support skirts dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It’s illegal to pay people to vote in a certain way, whether for a party or candidate.
Jacobsen: Has there been any legal response?
Rosner: Governor Shapiro has said that it needs to be investigated for legality, but realistically, nothing significant is likely to happen before the election. Even if action were taken, it might just give Musk more publicity and help Trump gain more attention. It’s a questionable tactic with the clear intent of incentivizing votes for Trump.
It’s quite the maneuver. I remember thinking years ago that a lottery for registered voters could be a way to increase voter turnout, as voting rates in the U.S. are lower than in some other countries.
It’s not a terrible idea on its own, but in this context, where it’s being used to drive registration and votes specifically for Trump, it comes across as sleazy.
Rick Rosner: McDonald’s has agreed to host a Trump event but has stated that it is not endorsing any political candidate. Many of their restaurants, perhaps most, are individually franchised. While I am not entirely certain, I assume some must be owned by the McDonald’s Corporation, but the majority are owned by individual franchisees. This was probably a franchisee who supports Trump and decided to close the restaurant for a day to host him in a staged event.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did this gain him any votes?
Rosner: It seems it provided him with exposure and placed him in a situation where he was not expected to speak in front of a large crowd. Any day he avoids making unscripted remarks could be seen as beneficial for his campaign because, at this point, he tends to make unpredictable statements that his team struggles to manage.
The event gave him visibility and helped portray him as a “man of the people” without any controversial comments. His team has been reducing his interviews. He famously took what he referred to as a cognitive test, which was actually a screening for early dementia, and reportedly performed well on it.
However, this test was conducted in 2020. A lot can happen in over three years, particularly given Trump’s hospitalization for COVID-19, which lasted several days. COVID-19, especially severe cases requiring hospitalization, has been associated with potential long-term effects on cognitive health. According to some studies, COVID-19 can contribute to cognitive decline. Therefore, it is possible that his cognitive state has changed since the test.
Furthermore, Trump has not released recent medical records or results from any physical exams conducted after his presidency. It is conceivable that these could reveal early signs of cognitive decline, though perhaps not enough to be classified as dementia. Observations of his current speech and behavior suggest some change. During his presidency, I did not find sufficient evidence to support the notion of cognitive impairment. Both sides of the political spectrum often accuse their opponents—Trump and Biden included—of mental decline.
During Trump’s time in office, some commentators speculated he had frontotemporal dementia, an early-onset form that affects behavior and decision-making due to changes in the frontal lobe, which regulates self-control and judgment.
The claim that Trump has frontotemporal dementia was largely based on his posture and behavior, with some pointing out his forward-leaning stance.
However, it is more likely that his posture is due to the one-and-a-half-inch lifts in his shoes. Trump, who is about 6’2″, has been reported to use shoe lifts that might make him lean forward slightly. It is difficult to say definitively, but over three years have passed since he left office, and there may be observable changes in his cognitive health.
This decline, however, may not impact his support base. Trump’s father, Fred Trump, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at age 85, and former President Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with the same condition at 83. The Alzheimer’s Association notes that symptoms can begin to manifest up to nine years before an official diagnosis.
So, it’s not inconceivable that if you do the math on Trump’s family history and assume he might follow the same path as his father, Trump could have started showing symptoms as early as 75. Trump is now 78. I would say he is in worse physical shape compared to his dad, who was quite lean. Although Trump doesn’t drink—unlike if his father had—his overall health is probably a more significant factor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s try 2085 onward. I’d argue for whole-brain interfaces and the construction of immersive illusions. Entire systems will be constructed, including the manipulation of emotions without the need for electrodes. It could be done through subtle manipulation using magnetic waves or other advanced methods. That’s a tough one. Indirect methods might work, but for precise applications, more intricate solutions would be necessary. Helmets won’t be enough.
Rick Rosner: Now, you can get a helmet that runs an electromagnetic field through your brain. It doesn’t shock you, but it somehow stimulates brain function. This is an actual technology called transcranial stimulation. It’s said to make your brain function better while you’re wearing it and for maybe half an hour afterward.
They’ve even used this technology on people with conditions like autism who struggle to understand social cues and facial expressions. By using transcranial stimulation, these individuals could temporarily process social signals they previously couldn’t. It’s fascinating.
So, there will eventually be helmets that target specific areas of the brain, like the “horny center,” to make you feel certain emotions. There’s a concept in a Greg Bear science fiction novel where terrorists kidnap industrialists and put “shame helmets” on them. These helmets induce feelings of shame in people who otherwise wouldn’t feel it, using transcranial induction or stimulation.
The question is how precise this technology can become. Precision might come from using these helmets in combination with VR rigs. The transcranial setup could potentially target parts of your brain that enhance your sense of wonder and suppress skepticism, making VR experiences more immersive, even if they aren’t perfect representations of reality.
I don’t know exactly how it’ll evolve, but this kind of technology seems likely. I also think we’ll see what I call “racks”—tiny living spaces for people who spend most of their time in VR. These spaces would be minimal, like 100-square-foot dorm rooms, because if someone is immersed in virtual experiences all day, they don’t need much living space.
There are already people who live in small, cramped spaces and spend most of their time gaming, sometimes for 14 hours a day. Some of them might do it virtually. They could be in their twenties, living at home, rarely leaving their room except for basic needs like eating, using the bathroom, and occasionally showering. In the future, society might develop amenities that cater to this lifestyle to prevent health issues associated with prolonged VR immersion.
These people might have small efficient apartments equipped with tech that provides passive exercise. About 20 years ago or more, there was technology that would stimulate your muscles with gentle electrical pulses, contracting them 30 to 60 times per minute.
Jacobsen: I remember that.
Rosner: It was marketed as a way to stay fit without traditional exercise. It wasn’t really effective, but it sort of claimed to be. The pitch was that you could exercise without thinking about it—the electric rig would do it for you. But I don’t think it worked very well, since that technology is no longer sold. I can imagine future advancements, though, because people need to move their bodies or they’ll face serious health issues.
There might be future technology designed to keep “rack folks” from deteriorating physically. Maybe there will also be dating technology for people living in these compact spaces. Some of them might still crave real-life human connection and will need to find like-minded individuals. I can picture couples who share a rack and live side by side in VR.
They might be living idealized versions of themselves in VR, where they’re constantly active and attractive. In real life, they might look pale, bedraggled, and miserable. They’d probably only interact briefly before returning to their VR world.
By 2085, we’ll likely have technology that could extend life to 120 years, with around 90 of those years being relatively active. There’s an old joke about someone who turns 100 and, when asked how they feel, says, “Great, like a 20-year-old with something seriously wrong.” By 2070 or 2080, a 90-year-old might look like a strange, reptilian version of a 52-year-old, capable of going to a bar for the elderly and meeting someone who’s actually 80 but looks like a hot, quirky 49-year-old.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What technology have you found hardest to adopt in your life?
Rosner: One of the things I missed out on culturally is gaming. I’m not a gamer. I’ve never played Call of Duty or any of the popular games. My last major gaming experience was Tank Command back in 1980, and I played Tetris in the 80s as well. That’s where my gaming history ends. I’ve missed the last 40 years of video games. Maybe I saved a lot of time by not gaming, considering how much time it takes. These days, video games are designed to offer about 60 hours of gameplay if you’re working through a story, which is a huge time commitment.
Jacobsen: That is a lot of time. What else have you avoided?
Rosner: I don’t code. Do you code? Everyone should know how to code, or at least have some understanding of it.
Everybody should have at least two years of coding experience by the time they graduate high school. I learned a bit of programming in the 1970s at school, but that was BASIC—something outdated now, with at least 30 programming languages having come since. I should also know more about genetics.
There’s a lot I should know too—quantum mechanics and general relativity at the mathematical level, where you spend a semester working through the material and understanding general relativity’s 4×4 matrix of values that determines the local curvature of space or something similar. I have a deep, intuitive, non-mathematical understanding of how these things work, but I can’t express them in mathematical terms. So, I feel I missed out there.
Jacobsen: What do you feel are your technical deficiencies, handwriting?
Rosner: I can handwrite, and I can sign signatures, but I don’t do it enough to feel confident. No one does anymore. Most people print instead, and cursive feels like a waste of time unless you’re addressing wedding invitations, in which case, you either hire someone or use a printer that can simulate handwriting. Coding is definitely one deficiency.
What about maintaining the skill to play an instrument?
Jacobsen: Yes, playing and maintaining an instrument is another skill I’ve lost. I could, however, pick up choir singing quite easily since I talk often, which exercises the voice. I have a deep voice, and bass singers are always needed.
Rosner: Have you ever been tempted to join a choir?
Jacobsen: Sometimes. Initially, not for the music, but because of a woman I was seeing.
Rosner: Yes, if you join a choir, you might meet a nice lady. That happened to me once, so I joined. Choirs are often full of nice ladies.
Jacobsen: What about these nice ladies?
Rosner: The interesting thing is that while these women live within a nice, often Christian framework, they sometimes feel both obligated and excited to be sexually adventurous within a committed relationship.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is another session number… probably 16,021,000.
Rick Rosner: I have a move on now. It’s a movie with Zac Efron and the guy you’ve seen in a zillion things. His last name is Adam Devine. He was in Workaholics. I know about that condition.
Normally, it’s Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016), starring Zac Efron and Adam Devine, and Anna Kendrick from Pitch Perfect and Aubrey Plaza from Parks and Rec. There are a couple of brothers who get out of hand and ruin every wedding or birthday they attend. Their family intervenes and tells them they cannot come to their sister’s wedding unless they bring dates.
Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick play a couple of wild, chaotic women. The brothers place an ad online looking for dates, but everyone who responds is unsuitable. The two women see the ad and decide to secure the gig by pretending to be nice girls. Instead of formally responding, they stage an accidental meeting on the street and succeed in getting invited. The film is raunchy and humorous. In one scene, the brothers’ cousin, who is highly competitive with them, seduces Plaza in a sauna. She claims she can secure backstage passes to a Beyoncé concert if Plaza agrees to a sexual favor. Adam DeVine walks in on this scene and reacts in shock and horror.
One of the brothers accidentally runs over the bride, their sister, with an ATV, bruising her face. One of the wild women hires a massage therapist, played by Kumail Nanjiani (before his Marvel transformation), to give the bride a “happy ending” massage. He oils himself and massages her, leading to an over-the-top scene. The movie is raunchy and funny, ultimately better than expected, as is often the case with films that embrace their absurdity without trying too hard.
Jacobsen: Is it similar to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle?
Rosner: Yes, it exists in the same genre but with about 40% less outrageousness. The performances make the movie stand out, as the cast is committed and willing to push boundaries. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castlehad a similar comedic tone, and everyone in it, especially Neil Patrick Harris, did a great job. This movie tries to be just as bold but remains somewhat more grounded.
Thinking of movies that try to be raunchy but fail, some disappear without a trace or end up being offensive without being funny. Boondock Saints comes to mind as a polarizing example; some consider it subpar while others see it as a cult classic. It’s not primarily a comedy, but it features a lot of over-the-top “bro-type” violence.
Jacobsen: What is “bro-type” violence?
Rosner: It’s hard to define, but Jeremy Piven often appears in movies that embody this style. Old School is a film in that vein, with Vince Vaughn. What do I think of Vince Vaughn? He’s talented and good at what he does. Will Ferrell? Also excellent. Both actors are smart and committed to their roles. Ferrell often uses his physique for comedic effect, even though he’s actually quite fit, as he is a runner in real life. He uses his body to enhance the humor of scenes where he’s either partially clothed or naked.
I once saw Vince Vaughn in a film that was released under two different titles and didn’t succeed either time. He doesn’t usually write his own material, so he relies on choosing scripts that suit his style. When given material that plays to his strengths—being charming and appearing nonchalant—he excels. Vaughn is currently in Bad Monkey, an adaptation of a Carl Hiaasen novel. It’s a Miami crime story filled with odd, flawed characters, typical of Hiaasen’s work and Florida crime fiction, which often features humor and absurdity. This adaptation is a TV series.
Jacobsen: What did you think of Billy Madison?
Rosner: It’s one of my favorite Adam Sandler movies. In it, Sandler’s character has to complete kindergarten through high school within a few weeks. It’s a funny premise. Interestingly, I once tried going back to high school and even junior high. I had a meeting with the administrators of a private junior high in my hometown to explain my idea, but they weren’t convinced. I had this idea about 15 years before Billy Madison.
I also met Sandler when I was writing for Remote Control. If I hadn’t been so clueless at the time, I might have written for him. He was gauging whether I had the comedic sensibility to match his, but I missed the opportunity.
Iwouldn’t know how to present this, but we went to Friendly’s Ice Cream Parlor, which had a drink called the Fribble. It was a New Jersey chain. My writing partner and his friends, who were from Jersey, knew everything about life in Caldwell, New Jersey, including the quirky stories involving mafia neighbors. If you want to learn how to be an asshole with flair, you grow up in New Jersey.
You learn how to be an asshole with panache. They would go to Friendly’s, and the Fribble was a drink—a combination of an ice cream float, shake, and malt. My friend’s trick was to slam it down and then puke it back into the glass. He would then call the waiter over and say, “This Fribble is warm. I love this, warm.” He’d send it back and get a free one. He had to puke the first one up, but he got the second for free. That, to me, seems very Jersey, and I loved it. But I didn’t know what to do with Adam Sandler.
I missed out on an opportunity with him because he had a comedy partner who went on to co-write about 20 movies with him. Sandler was also roommates with Judd Apatow a few years after my meeting with him, and they both became hugely successful while I was only moderately successful. I even got shingles because of Sandler. We were both up for the same role on the game show Remote Control, and the back-and-forth stress, I guess, gave me shingles. So there you go. Is that a Rotten Tomatoes moment?
Also, my hair is getting thinner, and I should probably consider another round of hair transplants. If not, I’ll have to avoid going out in the daytime or anywhere with overhead lighting—I’ll only be lit from the side. But, also, I’m 64. Who am I trying to impress? I don’t know. Maybe I should just dim the lights a little. I did that when I went back to high school at age 27. I had to stay out of direct light.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Russian propaganda is pervasive in Western societies. It’s cheap to produce and spread.
Rick Rosner: According to the statistics I’ve heard, they’ve spent $300 million over the past decade. We’ve discussed that—it’s cheap to make people crazy via social media. What did your Russian propaganda expert say?
Jacobsen: Hang on. I’ll add a whole summary. She is part of an organization in Ukraine. She’s a Jewish woman connected through another colleague in Ukraine, and she specializes in this area. She framed it as tools and narratives of Russian propaganda within the context of Ukraine. She wanted to focus more on Ukrainian sovereignty and cultural life rather than Russian influence. This will take a bit, but I’ll go through it quickly, relative to an hour and a half of interviews.
She noted that, in general, there is a strategy of leveraging a variety of tools, including media, culture, religion, and sports, to disseminate narratives. These narratives are used to justify policies that undermine Ukrainian sovereignty. This does not necessarily mean territorial integrity; it could also refer to cultural sovereignty, where Russia is seen as the big brother and Belarus and Ukraine are seen as little brothers, too incompetent to make their own cultural decisions and should leave that to Russia, the Russian Federation as the big brother.
Rosner: That’s a pretty intense framing.
Jacobsen: She also noted significant targeting of youth—even children—and the use of campaigns over time by the government to turn the youth towards military recruitment. There have been tragic cases in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea as annexed territories. That’s a long time for a young person. During that period, they could be indoctrinated. Crimea was captured by Russia in 2014, yes. So, there has been indoctrination on the peninsula.
They have been militaristically propagandized into supporting Russia. It’s quite a tragic case. Then there is also the narrative of “denazification.” Denazification, especially around Ukraine, reaches an absurd point when you consider the idea of Nazis in Ukraine today—not in the ‘90s, but now—given that Zelensky, the head of state, is Jewish and a former comedian. According to this narrative, he would be considered a Jewish Nazi, which categorically makes no sense.
So, in a sense, I pose this as Russia’s greatest setup and Zelensky’s greatest punchline. There is an aspect of antisemitism that was probably present in the Soviet era, so there might be some believability for people who left Ukrainian territory in the ‘80s or ‘90s. They might now live in places like New York, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem. They might have experienced antisemitism back then and thus, without critical analysis, believe these narratives. But in the current context, it makes no sense.
Rosner: So, people who left in the ‘80s or ‘90s might find the antisemitic narrative believable?
Jacobsen: Yes, probably from the ‘80s and early ‘90s. There is a believability when people who left Ukrainian territory during a different regime now hear these stories. On face value, without critical analysis, it makes sense to them based on their own experiences. But in the current context, it’s a different situation.
Rosner: So, people can still be influenced by those outdated beliefs?
Jacobsen: It’s a distorted reality. It’s similar to how we, as Americans, might think Russian propaganda is just nonsense, but people in Crimea and Donetsk could be propagandized into believing that Ukraine has Nazis they need to fight against, for the Russian cause. It does not have to be that Russia is seen as “cool”; it’s more about making the case that Ukraine needs to be fought for because of these fabricated narratives. I can see that as a plausible argument being made, especially given the violence and annexation.
It’s a complex situation, especially with the denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the dismissal of their independence and right to self-determination. Any move toward Western alliances is seen as automatically against Russian security interests.
Rosner: So, there’s a lot of suppression of alternative voices?
Jacobsen: Yes, individuals are blacklisted, and there is sociopolitical and professional pressure from the Russian state. Artists and public figures who openly condemn the actions of the government face cancellation and censorship. It’s about controlling reality through information manipulation. You get this distorted reality, where pop stars align with the government, promoting the war machine to justify military actions.
Rosner: It’s a propaganda machine in full swing. It’s all about distorting reality to make Russian aggression seem justified.
Jacobsen: That’s me filling in a blank as a non-expert. Now, other points: denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty. I touched on that. Maybe not necessarily Russia as the big brother, but the greater Russian world, where Belarus and Ukraine are the younger brothers who, as a moral argument, should have aligned interests with Russian interests.
Jacobsen: So, there’s a dismissal of Ukrainian independence and self-determination. Any move toward Western alliances is automatically seen as against Russian security.
Rosner: Right. Three other points, then we’ll get into more complex and nuanced points. The next one is the suppression of alternative voices. Individuals, like blacklisted artists and public figures, for example.
Jacobsen: Russian Kremlin created lists of individuals, in addition to discouraging organizations, producers, and collaborations with them. These individuals face sociopolitical and professional pressure from the Russian state, which began with the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. Any artist who has openly condemned the actions of the government faces cancellation and censorship. So, it creates a bubble of information.
When I read the works of cult experts, there’s this aspect of control, the coercive control: creating a distorted reality through the control and limitation of access to information and the type of information available to people. This can even extend to pop groups who are singing pro-war songs. My colleague showed me videos of what they’re presenting in huge stadiums, and there are manipulated metrics for popularity, like YouTube views. You get a distorted reality, with pop stars aligned with the government’s war machine, which then justifies military actions to reinforce Russian aggression.
Rosner: So, there’s a lot of manipulation of public perception?
Jacobsen: Yes, that’s right.
Rosner: The actual history of Ukraine in relation to this narrative: the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and Ukraine became independent, but not exactly. They gave up their nuclear weapons because the Soviet Union had many nukes stationed in Ukraine, and Ukraine agreed to return the nukes to Russia in exchange for protection from the West. But the early governments of an independent Ukraine were highly corrupt and in Russia’s pocket. There has been a multi-decade effort to clean up government corruption in Ukraine, and that’s something the U.S. and Europe have been interested in because a non-corrupt Ukraine is better at holding off Russia. That effort has been slowly succeeding, but the war has complicated that.
But the war has acted as a purifying fire, right? Has any further corruption been cleaned up, or not?
Jacobsen: There has been a reduction of corruption, but every country has corruption—it’s a matter of scale and type. So, it’s two dimensions: one is categorical, and one is on a sliding scale. The type of corruption taking place is on one axis, and the severity of that corruption is on the sliding spectrum.
Rosner: But does fighting a war make people less tolerant of corruption within their country? Also, does the need for resources to fight the war squeeze out corruption?
Jacobsen: You could take a correlative approach. Since the war started, there has been a reduction in regular crime across Ukraine.
Rosner: And you’ve been there twice. What’s your experience with it? I’d guess it doesn’t seem particularly corrupt.
Jacobsen: It doesn’t seem so. People have to attend to curfews—11 p.m. to 5 a.m. in some cities, 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. in others.
Rosner: So curfews impact crime rates.
Jacobsen: If crimes happen overnight, curfews help reduce them. Clubs that operate after curfew may still exist, but if power is only running for a few hours a day and there’s no generator, then it’s not a place that can operate as usual.
Jacobsen: So, does the government turn off the power during curfew?
Rosner: Not exactly during curfew, but power is often limited. Sometimes, they run out of capacity or bomb the infrastructure. They bomb water and heat grids, making it harder to manage.
So, let’s finish up these points. It’s been a long session, but who cares?
Jacobsen: There’s apathy in the public in terms of accessing alternative information. In Russia, there is widespread apathy—people are just like, “Let Putin do what he wants. We want to live our lives.” I can understand that sentiment on an emotional level. But it’s also about having those alternative information sources. That’s one thing. Wanting that information is another. The apathy is a psychological barrier, not just a direct access barrier.
So, the final point: cultural channels in propaganda. There are probably five main ones: film and television, music, religion, sports, and video games. In film and television, there are many state-funded movies and television series that depict Ukrainians negatively. The characters are inept or need Russian help. There’s a singer named Shaman, promoted as a face of patriotism. These concerts and events often get public funding, elevating state narratives while dissent is blacklisted.
Rosner: Yes, but don’t all those productions kind of suck? Do Russians realize they suck? Wouldn’t they rather watch foreign productions that are better?
Jacobsen: Most people are savvy. They accept it as what’s available, but they see through it. It’s too pander-y.
Rosner: Yes, especially with film and television. And then music?
Jacobsen: Music, too. The Russian Orthodox Church has demonstrated how state propaganda and religious authority intertwine. Clergy encourage their congregations to pray for the military. So, it’s all part of a coordinated effort.
Rosner: Sports, too—using spins on situations to foster a narrative of Russian resilience and superiority. I have another question. Social media propaganda, targeted at America and other Western democracies, operates out of a building in Saint Petersburg and has done so for years. Does this propaganda operate from a core location? Is there a little industrial park where all these efforts are coordinated?
Jacobsen: I do not know.
Rosner: There’s one building. You can look it up for the crap that goes on Twitter, for instance, and on Facebook, which is being worked on by people in that building. I’m sure they work hard generating propaganda 24 hours a day, but I’d bet you those people are treated well, and they have fun, because they’re coming up with persuasive lies. I assume it’s like writing comedy, trying to come up with persuasive bullshit. I assume these would be creative types who are happy to not be fighting in Ukraine and have a nice job making up stuff all the time, egging each other on to come up with this shit. And they probably have nice snacks.
Jacobsen: Maybe. Maybe. There’s a whole thing about militaristic video games, and that’s another part of the appeal to youth.
Rosner: In a related vein, we have 18 days to go before the general election in the U.S., and everybody anticipated that the bullshit would be flying fast. It pretty much is. A lot of Harris voters, including me, are a little offended and demoralized. There’s this thing… are you familiar with the PolyMarket?
Jacobsen: You mentioned this the other day, and I am not.
Rosner: Well, yes. So it’s where people put their money where their political instincts are, and the PolyMarket is giving Trump a 60% chance of winning. Except, you can game the market if you’ve got a ton of money by placing bets on what you want to happen, which pushes the market in your direction. Also, I’ve read that Peter Thiel—this billionaire who owns PolyMarket has been paying Twitter influencers or ex-influencers to tweet about PolyMarket, to get the news about what it thinks about Trump’s chances out there in order to demoralize Harris voters. So there’s that.
So, it’s manipulation at a different level. There are also polling trends showing the race tightening. There are so many pollsters now. There are probably 40 pollsters working the election, maybe more when you look at smaller races. The governor’s race in New Hampshire is a big one. Dozens of pollsters, and it only takes a few minutes to check out any individual pollster to see if they’re run by Republicans, neutral people, or Democrats. Sometimes, you can’t tell.
But nobody has the time to check out whether the pollsters are biased or not. So, you see this swarm of polls, and you have no idea whether they’re legitimate or just bullshit. So it’s a little disheartening. But then if you look at early voting numbers—have we talked about early voting numbers?
So, polls can be manipulated, and PolyMarket can be, and is, being manipulated. But what’s more difficult to manipulate is early voting data. About 10% of voters have already turned in their vote-by-mail ballots or voted early in states that allow that. A little more than 7% of those votes have been received and tallied. Some states keep track of the genders of the voters, and some keep track of their political party affiliations. You can compare that with previous elections to see that maybe Harris isn’t as fucked as the PolyMarket would have you believe.
For instance, in 2020, in early voting, Democrats outvoted Republicans by 1.3%. Now, the Dems are outvoting Republicans by 6%, and the margin that Trump won Florida by in 2020 was 3.36%. So, if these early voting numbers are any indication, Florida is closer to being in play than the polls would indicate.
And there’s more optimism in other areas. Six states report gender, and those states show that, looking at 3.4 million votes across those states, women are outvoting men by 10%, 55 to 45. That’s a good sign for Harris because women tend to vote for Harris over Trump by 14%, while men vote for Trump over Harris by 16%. So, the more women voting, the more likely you’ve got an advantage for Harris.
And Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 17% or 16.5%, which will probably come down as more early votes are registered, but if anything like in 2020, which was a Biden victory, in early voting, Dems outvoted Republicans by 14.3%. So, these numbers are at least as meaningful as poll numbers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think the evolving relationship will be between Elon Musk and his support for presidential candidate Trump?
Rick Rosner: It’s come out that he’s donated to Trump’s campaign. Some people say he’s the richest man on earth, which means he’s worth, what, close to $100+ billion? He’s given Trump $75 million in campaign contributions or through PACs that support Trump. I think it’s bullshit. It’s an abuse of the system made possible by Citizens United. It’s bullshit that he’s been able to do this at a cost to himself of tens of billions of dollars. He bought Twitter for $44 billion, and now it’s worth maybe $12 billion, maybe even less than that.
He turned it into a mouthpiece for right-wing bullshit, and it’s not even an effective mouthpiece. He’s an asshole. To some extent, he’s a fraud. He’s been good at getting business from the government, where he’s basically our space agency now. He does all our launches and puts all our satellites into orbit. The guy has way too much political power because he has so much money. That’s it.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let’s say we do two paths. If Trump wins, what happens immediately? If Harris wins, what happens immediately?
Rick Rosner: The election’s November 5th, which means you’ve got two and a half months before Trump takes office if he wins. He’s been found guilty on 34 charges of fraud in state courts. I don’t think he can pardon himself from state charges. He can keep appealing, and he’s got another 54 or so charges in three indictments, some of which are federal. I don’t think those cases will move forward before he’s president. Once he’s president, he’ll immediately pardon himself.
In terms of enacting his agenda, he’s talked about more tax cuts for rich people and deporting tens of millions of undocumented immigrants. He probably won’t be able to do much of anything without some bipartisan agreement because we now have the least effective House of Representatives in history—it’s so evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and there’s no political will to work together. Trump will be in the same situation. He can do things by executive order, but the immediate political implications of him being elected won’t be drastic. His language will probably continue to be drastic.
He hasn’t been conciliatory at any point in his political career. He’s never said he’ll govern for all Americans. So, he’ll continue to be a dick. But at least in the first couple of months of his administration, he won’t be able to make vast changes. At some point in his administration, Alito and Thomas will probably retire from the Supreme Court because they’re old, and they can be confident he’ll appoint people of their political stripe who are younger.
That could happen at any time once he’s in office. That could be an immediate thing. He hasn’t released his medical records, and he’s been looking and sounding pretty shitty. So at some point, he could resign for health reasons and have Vance take over. Again, that won’t be immediate. The most immediate thing is how bummed most Americans will be if he gets reelected because it’ll be four years of shitty governance, lies, no progress on climate change, and maybe hanging Ukraine out to dry. Excuse me. It’ll be a not very attractive place to attract foreign talent to come here to do business.
The U.S. needs to stay competitive with tech, especially with AI disrupting everything. If we want to continue to lead the world technologically, we need to draw talent from the rest of the world. We’re only 4% of the world’s population, but with Trump in charge, we’ll be unwelcoming to foreign talent. That’ll hurt us with regard to AI. Becoming the leader in AI and robotics and other disruptive technologies is one key for us to grow our way out of a tremendous national debt. With Trump in charge, we won’t even be able to do that. It’ll be a kick in the balls, and it’ll be bad for the U.S.’s standing in the world. It’ll be bad for Ukraine. But the immediate, fascistic deals won’t happen.
If Harris is elected, she’ll have the same problem of a paralyzed Congress that Trump would have had, because it’ll be fairly evenly divided. She’ll also have the additional problem of all the MAGAs claiming the election was stolen. She’d have to win by a lot to tamp down any of that, and she likely won’t win by a lot. She’ll probably win the popular vote, and probably by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton did. I’m guessing she’ll win by about 5 million votes, which puts her in the middle between Clinton, who won by less than 3 million, and Biden, who won by 7 million. She’d narrowly win the electoral college?
But there will be several states in which she wins by fewer than 30,000 or 50,000 votes. The MAGAs and Trump will claim fraud, and they’ll take to the streets and to the courts. We’ll have 2020 all over again. Maybe not an assault on the Capitol, but there’ll be all sorts of shitty MAGA activity. She likely won’t be able to appoint any Supreme Court justices as soon as Trump would have been able to because the guys closest to retirement hate Democrats and will try to hang in there, hoping they can stay on the court until there’s a Republican in office again.
Some of the legislative basis for things she wants to do, like the $25,000 grant to first-time homeowners to help with their down payment or the $50,000 tax deduction for people starting a business, all these things are going to need to be the result of legislation. I don’t think she’ll have the power to get this stuff passed. So, I guess with either person getting elected, we’re looking at gridlock. If she gets elected, the prosecution of Trump will move forward over the next year or two.
And he won’t be able to pardon himself from any of the prosecutions. I don’t have much insight into any of that, but that’s the deal.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are you defining and presenting hack comedy?
Rick Rosner: Let me answer the question, then I’ll talk about hack. There’s a hack stance that, of course, American men, the kind who hang plastic testicles off the back of their pickup trucks, are cooler with lesbians than with gay men. Because bros, frat bro types, they’re regular, rednecky, or bro-ish guys who love a pair of hot college girls making out with each other.
There might be a reality behind that hack joke—that Americans maybe don’t mind women experimenting with same-sex sexual activity the way they’d freak out if they found out their male partner had engaged in same-sex sexual activity in college. Now, if you want me to define hack, hack comedy is relying on easy and often obsolete stereotypes to make jokes off of. Or leaning into jokes that have been “fucked out”—jokes made 20 years ago. Everybody who’s familiar with comedy knows those jokes, but the hack comedian still builds off of them. It’s a desperate way to try to be funny—going into your file of hack humor because you don’t know any better, and trying to make shitty jokes. Shitty because they’re used up.
You can do decent humor, good skilled humor, building off hack stuff if you acknowledge the hackiness of what you’re building from. But a hack comic has trouble coming up with new material and leans into old, easy stuff, especially if their target audience is unsophisticated or hasn’t seen much humor.
I know you could argue that Leno on The Tonight Show was hackier than some of the other late-night hosts because his jokes were simpler and more obvious. So there you go. There’s also some people who view that as a minor tragedy of Leno. He came up in the ’80s with Letterman and all the other innovative comedians. His stuff was original and clever. He came from that generation of really inventive comedians.
Then he took over The Tonight Show. Johnny Carson left The Tonight Show in 1992, which I guess means that’s when Leno took it over. Carson’s stuff in the last 10 years of his show was pretty lazy, and you could argue it was hacky. Maybe his monologue was weak, and what people liked were his interviews, where he was sharp and funny with his guests. Leno kind of followed that tradition—easy jokes for a huge audience of unsophisticated consumers.
He had mass appeal, but it wasn’t pushing any boundaries. Having worked in this space, I can tell you that one key to avoiding hackiness is not being satisfied with your first batch of ideas. When Judd Apatow makes a movie, he does table reads with all the funny people he knows in town, and they all throw out a ton of jokes for every little scene. So you have dozens of jokes to choose from.
That’s the way to get a good joke. You don’t stop at your first idea for a joke on a topic. You keep going until you’ve run through a bunch of jokes, and you choose the best one after working at it for a while. Sometimes, you do multiple batches on a subject until you get a joke that’s good enough. A hack will stop after one or two ideas.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about her highness, Kamala Harris? What are your thoughts on Harris? Same question about her.
Rick Rosner: Harris, in the past, has been seen as maybe not good because of the roundabout answers she gives. And some of it is the media looking for ways to make her look bad when there’s nothing there. For instance, she was at a meeting and introduced herself in a weird way that the media wanted you to think was weird. “I am Kamala Harris. I’m so and so. I’m wearing a blue blouse,” or something like that.
And the media wanted you to think, “What’s her deal there?” The deal was that there was somebody blind at the meeting, and she was trying to describe herself for someone who couldn’t see her. In her latest incarnation, since she’s been running for president, she hasn’t had any serious gaffes. She’s been lucky, but she’s only been running for president for, what, 3 months? Which has limited her chances of saying something the media could use against her.
She hasn’t had anything, at least lately. If you look at attack ads, when she was attorney general, she stood up for a murderer in prison, I guess, for life, to get gender-affirming care. A trans person who had been a murderer and needed medical support for their transness, which is a long-standing policy within U.S. prisons. This is something that started in the ’70s, where people started coming out as trans in prisons and fighting to get medical support for their transness. People have been arguing about it since then, but the right wing was trying to hang it on her—she was being a political activist, saying this murderer should get special treatment for being trans, even though they killed people.
Though I’d have to look it up to see if it was the Boston Strangler, but some notorious serial killer of women became trans and tried to live as a woman on death row somewhere in the ’80s, maybe. There were pictures of her with her fake boobs and her prison boyfriend. This person was allowed to live as trans on death row or wherever this person was, and the people who got appalled by this were appalled. And yes, the pictures were appalling. But the idea that this is a new thing—it’s been going on for 50 years. Trying to hang it on Harris, as if she’s been an activist in this area, reeks of bullshit.
The problem with trans issues, one of the issues, is that it’s only fairly recently, within the last 10 or 15 years, that trans people have been coming out as a social presence—demanding to be seen as individuals and as a group in society. Before the 21st century, you had people who chose to be trans—some famous people who got trans surgery. But the movement for trans rights and recognition has really taken off within the last 12 years.
Is that reasonable?
Jacobsen: Probably accurate.
Rosner: Although it might be a little more difficult to look at the precise data, but I’m sure. The problem is that with trans people, who are maybe 1% of the population—which isn’t a huge percentage in a big country like the U.S., but still a lot of people—there are millions of trans people in the U.S., along with millions more gender-fluid people. With millions of people involved, the U.S. has to come up with policies: What to do about trans people in sports, what to do about bathrooms. Republicans try to say that this is the Democrats radicalizing society, making society all gay and trans. Which is bullshit because it’s trans people demanding to be recognized as people in society. It’s not the Democrats trying to make everybody trans. It’s people who are trans wanting to live their lives, and the government having to figure out policies regarding trans people. So the Republicans want to make it look like the Democrats are on this campaign.
It’s Democrats recognizing transness as a civil rights issue, not some agenda. The whole thing puts Democrats in a position where Republicans can bullshit people about it. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Question. Do Americans have a bigger issue with lesbians or with gay men?
Rosner: Well, you could argue that most of the population doesn’t have an issue with either group. When you poll people, the vast majority of Americans now are in favor of gay marriage. When you look at our TV shows, Americans and the world will accept gay characters living their lives, being portrayed doing the stuff that any normal gay person would do—being married or having a same-sex partner, or just being gay out in the world. Where, 20 years ago, that would have been seen as “ick” by a huge percentage of Americans. But now, most people are fine with it. So, I disagree with the question that it’s a bigger issue with gay men or lesbians. Most Americans don’t have a problem with it, or at least, most Americans strive not to be assholes about it. It’s some people who are gay, lesbian, or whatever.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What gaffes and flaws do you see in Vance, similar to the commentary about Trump and about Walls?
Rick Rosner: Vance has been attacked by Trump and others for changing his political stances. Most famously, maybe, is about fracking. He was, at some point, in 2016, against fracking, which I take to mean he was against all fracking, and now he’s pro-fracking. Which I assume means pro-reasonable fracking, which would be my stance—that there are places where you can reasonably do fracking. We’ve fucked up the planet by pulling out a ton of fossil fuels. Fracking is more of that. But we’re not past the fossil fuel era yet.
So, I guess I’m okay with fracking, done reasonably. I assume that’s what Harris thinks too at this point. Vance has changed his opinion of Trump extremely. Vance, being a young guy, has an extensive history of emails and social media posts. He called Trump America’s Hitler, and there are probably more than a dozen social media posts where Vance talks about what a piece of shit Trump is. And now that he’s on Team Trump, Trump has forgiven him. So, his past is a gaffe. Then, his statements that are anti-women, his getting behind the idea that Haitian immigrants eat dogs and cats—you could call those gaffes, but they’re things he’s said that don’t bug his base. They might cost him support, maybe among some independents.
So, is it a gaffe when you say this shit, and it’s in line with what Trump’s been saying? Has he said anything disqualifyingly awful? It’s not in the nature of this election to even have that happen. Trump and Vance can’t say anything so terrible that it costs them support among their base. There’s only a 3% gap—Harris only has a 3% lead. And there are only 3% undecided voters. So, the Trump base is kind of gaffe-proof.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s going on with Trump’s party?
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, Trump was holding another rally, and it was hot. Two people fainted. That somehow gave Trump the excuse to stop taking questions from the audience. He’d only taken four, and then he decided instead to play music. For 39 minutes, he played songs and kind of half-danced. It was weird. It led to people who don’t like Trump asking on social media, “Does this say anything about him? Is his brain turning to shit?” And it’s hard to tell.
Though no other candidate could do something as weird as that without suffering more repercussions than he does.
Jacobsen: What do you think Walz does that’s weird?
Rosner: Walz pretty much claims that he speaks too exuberantly and without thinking. For instance, people who are against the Democrats try to make big things out of things he’s said. For instance, he said he carried a weapon of war during the war. Republicans tried to call this “stolen honor” because, while he was in the National Guard for 24 years and deployed to Europe as support staff for the Afghan war, he wasn’t deployed directly to Afghanistan. When you’re staging a war in Europe, or wherever Afghanistan is, you need additional staff at various bases to support that effort. He was deployed, but not to Afghanistan. So, people showed a clip of him saying that and criticized him for saying he wasn’t in a war.
Jacobsen: And did that change people’s minds?
Rosner: No, his job was gunnery sergeant, and he trained people in the use of artillery to the point where he had to have surgery on his ears to restore his hearing. But he didn’t fire this stuff in a war. But he did. Another thing more recently was that he claimed to have been in Hong Kong when the Chinese brutally suppressed and killed protesters in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. Somebody looked it up and found out he wasn’t in China when that happened. He was there a month before or after, or some shit.
Jacobsen: Does any of this matter?
Rosner: None of it seems to be a smoking gun that disqualifies him as a candidate. Yesterday or the day before, there was a photo of him out in a field in hunting gear. Then, further footage showed that he was having trouble loading his rifle, which is weird. He didn’t know the official term for some shoulder pad that protects you against the recoil from your rifle.
All of it, to me at least, has the taint of people who don’t want Harris or Walz trying to come up with something to make him look bad and coming up short. There was some story that he was head of his school’s faculty sponsor and helped the kids at the school start a gay-straight alliance or a gay club. He and his wife took a student to an Indigo Girls concert.
I didn’t go deeply into this because it’s more of the same horse shit. Then somebody went on social media, on Twitter, falsely claiming to have been that student and said that Walz had sex with him.
So, none of this strikes me as Walz being particularly weird. But what does he do that’s weird? The various candidates have been attacking each other for being not smart. Trump called Harris retarded. I would say that Trump is definitely not smart.
He may have been kind of smart when he was younger, but his laziness over the decades has made him, in effect, not smart. Plus, he’s 78 now and mentally a little glitchy. When it comes to the other candidates, teachers on average aren’t necessarily brilliant. There’s a chance that Walls and his wife aren’t geniuses but are nice, reasonable people. There’s also a chance that Harris isn’t a genius. We’ve talked about it—there have only been a couple of geniuses who’ve been president.
Teddy Roosevelt. Somebody who knows presidential history better than me said that, I guess, John Quincy Adams was a genius. But genius is not a requirement for being a good president. Trump has attacked Biden for being not smart. I don’t think Biden’s a genius either. But Biden has been in national politics for 50 years.
So he’s deeply experienced. 36 years in the Senate, 8 as VP. He knows how to get things done. He’s no Stephen Hawking, but the experience has been deeply helpful. So, I don’t think anybody in this election cycle has profound intelligence. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, went to Oxford. However smart he was, it didn’t stop him from jizzing on Monica Lewinsky. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer aboard a submarine, wasn’t he?
His smarts didn’t stop him from being a one-term president. So, of the various candidates for president and VP, Trump is definitely the dumbest, to the point where it’s a problem. He’s probably the dumbest president of our lifetimes. But nobody else being a genius disqualifies them from being president or VP. So, you asked, and that’s a roundabout way of answering your question. The weirdest thing about Walls that comes to mind immediately is how ordinary he is. He’s a regular guy. Which is fine. Because I’d argue that statistically, if you wanted to look at the presidency, president by president, in terms of smarts, maybe the average intelligence of a president is slightly above average. Somewhere between the average IQ of a college graduate with a BA and a graduate with a master’s or PhD. Somewhere in between there.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, in an article in Noesis, the journal of the Mega Society years ago, you wrote an article about road rage. Do you still have it? Why is it more? Why is it less?
Rick Rosner: It’s mostly less because I’m older, and not necessarily wiser, but people’s driving has overall gotten so shitty that you can’t be mad at everybody all the time. I read that traffic accidents are up 15%, with the theory being that COVID has affected everybody’s brain, making us angrier and destroying spatial perception, if any of that is accurate. But yes, since I wrote that article almost 20 years ago, people’s driving has gotten a lot worse.
Also, I don’t drive as much anymore. I picked up Carole at the airport, but that’s a rare long trip for me—25 miles to the airport.
Jacobsen: How’s traffic?
Rosner: Not bad until a quarter mile from the airport. Then LAX—well, they keep trying to fix it to get people in and out of there, and maybe someday they will, but it’s not fixed yet. They’ve spent probably $1 billion upgrading the traffic flow in and out of there, and it’s still messed up. Maybe it’s the design of the area—it’s in the middle of a city. There’s an IHOP a block away, and Sepulveda Boulevard is right there. Modern airports seem to be designed for flow, away from the heart of the city. They shut down Denver’s Stapleton Airport 20 years ago and built a new one 20 miles out of town. It was probably part of some corrupt land deal.
But you can get in and out of the new Denver airport. I’ve never seen a traffic jam there. Though, what you save in time by missing traffic jams, you end up wasting on driving 15 to 20 miles to it and another 15-20 miles away from it. But yes, I assume it’s an outmoded design from the 60s that makes LAX such a pain in the ass to get in and out of.
Dorothy Small is a candid person, devout believer in God, and a woman with a lot of life experience. What is her advocacy for Survivor Network for those Abused by Priests?
Dorothy Small an advocate for SNAP, Survivor Network for those Abused by Priests since 2019, was a child sex abuse victim. She also experienced sexual abuse by a clergyman as an adult. Dorothy courageously addressed the latter through successful litigation publicly disclosing her identity prior to the inception of the #Me Too movement. Victimized but not a victim she shares how she moved beyond surviving to thriving using adversity as a powerful motivator. She fortified herself with knowledge of personability disorders and tactics used by predators to help her spot wolves in sheep’s clothing. This has enabled her to feel safe in a world where safety is not guaranteed, even in institutions where one would expect it such as religious. A retired registered nurse with over forty years of clinical experience, Dorothy lives with her loving fur companions Bradley Cooper and Captain Ron, Boston Terriers. She is a self-published author, cancer survivor, mother, and grandmother. Dorothy is currently working on a book detailing her experiences in moving beyond a life of abuse and into a new life of freedom.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have decided, after some discussions with members of the Eastern Orthodox community who are pioneers in research into clergyrelated abuse and following some articles written about 6 or 7 years ago and then republished in The Good Men Project in January, to take a deep dive on the subject matter of abuse in the Orthodox churches. Which raises the issues, what about some of the survivors and the contexts of the crimes and criminals of the Roman Catholic Church? There has been a rich legacy of criminality wholly apart from theological veracity or the God concept. What is the contemporary understanding of the breadth of the abuse of children and adults by the Roman Catholic Church, institutionally?
Dorothy Small: I believe it is not considered to be an issue in the present as much as in the past when it came more into light in 2002 during the Boston Globe Spotlight. The focus was centered on abuse of minors exclusively with abuse of adults not considered abuse but a “lapse in judgment and vows” and “sin”. However, Richard Sipe who treated clergy for sexual related issues as a therapist estimated that about 50% maintain the vow of chastity. It is easy for a priest to dismiss the lapse as not violating the vow of celibacy which is about marriage. Teaching the Biblical position on sex belonging in marriage then acting out of their vow of celibacy violates not only the vow of celibacy but that os chastity which means refraining from engaging in sexual relationships. Most in the church understands the abuse of children is a criminal offense and believe it is being addressed which measures have been instituted to better protect minors. However, abuse still occurs. As for adults until the #me too movement was ushered into public consciousness in the 2017 the general consensus is that adults are consensual and that the adult is even responsible for tempting the priest instead of protecting him at all cost even if it means to remain quiet if something happens. Many parishioners who are lacking knowledge that adults are also exploited and abused have difficulty viewing the cleric in such a light in order to continue in their spiritual practice in the church. It is easier to place the anger and blame on the adult who is victimized by the abuse of spiritual power and authority than to face the fact that they too have been manipulated by the cleric who is not adhering to what he preaches and his sacred vows.
Jacobsen: The practice of shuffling around priests can create a terrible image over the long term because these hierarchs can be promoted over time, so garnering more authority, for one. For two, over enough decades, it can appear as if the abusers are in every parish, diocese, etc., when, in fact, it could be a apparency effect because the abusers get moved around – so, out of the total population of Catholic hierarchs, it may not be that many, but appears as such given the pervasive shuffling. It’s the problem of institutional ‘solutions’ to deflect accountability. What else happens with these Catholic hierarchs, in terms of protections by policies?
Small: Protecting the church from scandal which it hates has created a culture of secrecy by covering up, dismissing, minimizing and gaslighting to deflect accountability for actions which cause scandal. Clericalism perpetuates the problem. The policy of transferring the clergy, which is an issue, was easy to do as the church is universal and in countries around the world. It is easy to move the cleric out of the country as many are from foreign countries and practicing in this country on work visas. Bishops are accountable for the clergy and for handling complaints. Yet the process is not conducive for the ease of reporting but for protecting the clergy. I understand it is important to protect them from false complaints. However, it is not common for someone to make such a complaint. In 2019 Pope Francis updated church law aimed at holding senior churmen accountable for covering up sexual abuse cases expanding it to cover lay Catholic leaders and acknowledging that vulnerable adults and not only children can be victims of abuse when they are unable to freely consent. The definition of what constitutes adult vulnerability has not been settled. This is an ongoing discussion in the church. However, any adult at any age and stage in life can be vulnerable to the grooming tactics of a highly manipulative cleric due to the imbalance of power and spiritual authority. The ongoing debate of what constitutes adult vulnerability when in fact all parishioners are vulnerable to the authority of the cleric as they are in his care should settle the debate.
Jacobsen: What do these policies send as a message to the laity and to the non-Catholic public? It is a juggernaut. It would be – is – impossible to ignore them, globally.
Small: That the adult is still responsible for the abuse unless they are seriously impaired. This means that as things stand there is no protective course set in place to educate the public on grooming tactics and red flags to observe as well as measures to protect oneself such as it is ok to say no to clergy and not to assume that all are safe because of their position.
Jacobsen: Not many people, as you explained to me, encounter multiple experiences of abuse over separated instances by different clergy. It happens once, repeatedly, by one Catholic hierarch. How was yours unusual in that regard?
Small: In one parish a priest groomed my husband and I at the time asking for an invitation to our home for dinner. We had two young sons around the ages of five and seven and a half. This priest was charismatic and appeared to be fond of children. We felt honored to be “chosen” by him for personal attention. My actions prevented him from coming back to our home when I expressed concern after his behavior at our home the evening he came over. He was extremely flirtatious to me in front of my husband and asked to “tuck the boys in their beds and read them their prayers”. Years later when researching what happened to him I discovered he was out of the priesthood because of a scandal involving a minor. I also discovered that at the time he was grooming my husband and I to have access to our children that there was a complaint from another family for similar behavior of a minor child the same age as our children. This was dealt with secretly at the time but was discovered during the lawsuit per public record. Immediately after he was transferred to his next assignment another priest who replaced him asked me to help him with a ministry that he would teach me which brought us in close contact. Within a couple of weeks he let me in on his secret. A woman had sought him for counseling at his former parish and was pregnant with his child. He swore her to secrecy. Meanwhile, vulnerable because of unresolvable marital conflict at the time this priest moved in on me within four months after my former husband and I separated. He was highly manipulative and charismatic, engaging what I now have come to learn as gaslighting which caused me to doubt my perceptions over his. His other victim filed a lawsuit. I did not know I was also his victim. This was in the early 1990’s. He left the priesthood. Then in the third parish I became involved with the third priest entered into the picture. I was in counseling for a number of years at the time for issues regarding severe childhood emotional abuse and catastrophic familial losses at an early age. Experiencing narcissistically abusive relationships since childhood through care providers left me vulnerable for more abusive relationships as an adult. I did not seek any of the priests in my story for counseling. The first we were chosen just because we attended mass and visited with the priest after mass along with others in front of the church. The other chose me to engage in a ministry together. The third fixated on me as I was in ministry and visible plus we were at a luncheon held in his honor welcoming him to the parish. However, because they are priests I engaged in sharing personal information with them thinking it would protect both of us. If I shared my vulnerability, that would cause them to stay away from me. Instead, they used it to groom me and gain access to my emotions which then they gained entry into my head.
Jacobsen: What forms of justice have been met for clergy-based abusers by the abused-by-the-clergy?
Small: In my case the first two priests were sued by their victims. They both left the priesthood one mandated and the second left on his own volition before he would be forced to leave. It was a measure of control on his part. The third priest was removed from his position as he was on a work visa and sent back to his country where he was placed back in active ministry and remains to this day, to my knowledge based on what I was able to locate online. After advocating for myself through victim advocacy for around ten months I was unresolved and what I requested in order to heal was denied. I filed a lawsuit and mediated with a settlement. Not having to sign a nondisclosure agreement to maintain my voice I settled out of court to be able to focus my energy on healing. Later that year I joined SNAP, Survivor Network for Those Abused by Priests. I continue to learn and focus on the underlying issues that rendered me so vulnerable and continue to be an active volunteer advocate with SNAP. For me healing began when the lawyer who was also a psychologist took my case. He heard me, believed me, and advocated for me against the most powerful institution in the world. This gave me the motivation to keep fighting for myself as recovery was not going to be quick or easy. I could not heal from the church abuse without bringing healing to everything which it was attached to. I was born into a tough situation and it continued throughout the rest of my childhood. I also experienced sexual abuse as a child by a familial member and a high school teacher. Standing up to the last priest and the lawsuit helped me to bring healing to what I could not seek justice for so long ago. It empowered me and gave me my voice that I use to address the serious effects of clergy abuse. It is spiritual incest.
Jacobsen: Have you had any similar style of justice?
Small: I answered this question above. But to answer the previous question I believe we are only beginning to see justice through lawsuits. Many survivors would like to see the cleric removed from ministry. However, some continue to ministry or are transferred and continue in ministry. The statute of limitations prevents those who realize they were abused from coming forward as often as with those abused as children it can take decades to be able to come forward because of memories blocked, fear of the repercussions or reporting, and the stigma of getting a priest in trouble.
Jacobsen: How can the abused be re-traumatized in the midst of the publicity, the legal proceedings, and so on?
Small: Victim bashing, blaming, shaming, losing religious community because the parishioners either can’t understand the nature of abuse and what constitutes it or their own struggle to believe they were misrepresented, being ostracized, not believed, treated as the perpetrator through harsh questioning tactics all serve to enhance the trauma. It is pure hell on top of the abuse itself.
Jacobsen: What do you think are the lessons individuals abused by the Eastern Orthodox Church can take from the Roman Catholic Church scandals?
Small: They need to admit that abuse is taking place in their church and not point the finger at the Catholic Church as being the main problem simply because the problem was forced into the open by investigative journalists, survivors coming forward and attorneys who take the cases. From what I have been told by a couple of members seeking to bring the issue into the light there is staunch denial that the abuse ever occurred and no admission by the hierarchy to the victims that abuse happened which means there is no accountability in the way of justice.
Jacobsen: How does this clergy-based abuse, to you, have no relation to the God concept, yet poisons people’s notions of the God concept?
Small: From my experience and exposure to both adults abused as children and adults abused as adults it has detrimental effects. For those abused as children it not only has lasting effects on religious practice later in life but it distorts their perception of a loving and benevolent God. For many it is as if God Himself abused them sexually. For both adults and children many have God brought into the abuse as if it is condoned or honors God in some way. God is used in the manipulation. The clergy represent Christ in personna. Many adults including myself leave the church either for a prolonged period of time or indefinitely. I continued to attend mass until I discovered it was actually keeping me from being able to heal from the abuse. What was once a place of comfort and nurturing as well as the place of worship became the reminder of sexual abuse. The church is considered the field hospital for spiritual healing and nurturing. It is a house or worship where we enter more vulnerable than even with therapists as it addresses our soul. The Church is meant to help us get to heaven and not drag us down into hell by a wolf in shepherd’s clothing preying on the flock instead of protecting it from the evils in the world. Yet, the sad reality is we must not be blind to the reality that evil through personality disordered individuals who seek positions of power and authority with adulation and plenty of supply need to be held accountable instead of protected by their hierarchy in which they serve. No one is above the law.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dorothy.
Small: Thank you for the opportunity to express a subject for which I wish I did not have so much experience. However, I realize if I kept silent I would be complicit with the darkness instead of speaking truth bringing light into it. The truth is what is needed. It is what God stands for as well as justice. Addressing the issue and engaging in prevention and holding perpetrators accountable protects the public, the good priests upholding their vows and rules associated with their positions, and the church. I think about the name of God and who will speak on His behalf? Those of us who speak out serve God as well.
How do legal principles and theological insights intersect in addressing the ethical concerns surrounding exorcisms?
Dr. Ronald Reese Ruark, an attorney in private practice in Canton, Michigan, has nearly 35 years of legal experience and holds a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary (1984) and a Juris Doctor from Marquette University Law School (1991). Currently pursuing doctoral studies at the University of Michigan, he focuses on the influence of Enochic Judaism on Paul’s apocalyptic theology. Ruark has written on theology, law, and religious skepticism, including his Free Inquiry article, Three Exorcisms. His theological and legal expertise intersect with his deep interest in First Amendment issues, particularly religious freedom and expression. He left the ministry in 1988 and returned for two years before departing permanently in 2006. Ruark describes his journey as an intellectual evolution shaped by rigorous theological study and his legal career. His perspective highlights the ethical concerns surrounding religious practices like exorcism, the broader societal role of religion, and the interplay between faith and reason.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Ronald Reese Ruark. He is an attorney in private practice in Canton, Michigan, with almost thirty-five years of legal experience. He holds a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary(1984) and a Juris Doctor from Marquette University Law School (1991).
He is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan studying the influence of Enochic Judaism on Paul’s apocalyptic theology. Ruark has written on theology, law, and religious skepticism, including his Free Inquiry article, Free Exorcisms. He has been married to his wife, Nancy, for forty-five years. His extensive background brings a unique perspective on faith, law, and intellectual inquiry.
How do your theological and legal expertise intersect personally?
Dr. Ronald Reese Ruark: Theology, specifically the New Testament, has always been my first love. I was a Greek major in college, taught by a professor with a background in classical Greek, which deepened my interest in studying the New Testament. I strengthened that foundation at Dallas Theological Seminary, where I was a theology major studying under Norman Geisler. Sometimes, I wish I had pursued New Testament studies because, at the time, Dallas had a fine, young New Testament department—some of whom are still teaching today, forty years later, at the peak of their careers.
Jacobsen: How do theology and law blend in your career?
Ruark: Originally, I envisioned becoming a lay minister in a church. Legal issues, particularly First Amendment matters—especially freedom of expression—have always intrigued me. There is significant common ground between theology and law.
Eventually, I left the ministry in 1988, though I briefly returned in 2002–2004. I served as a pastor for twenty-five months before leaving for good in 2006.
Jacobsen: Those two years in the pulpit—this isn’t the main focus of the interview, but it’s insightful—what were the key takeaways, both positive and negative, that you carry with you today?
Ruark: The most positive takeaway was working with wonderful people. Many church members sincerely strive to shape their lives around their faith in Christ. Their sincerity was inspiring. I also enjoyed public speaking—I spoke four times weekly, twice from the pulpit and twice in the classroom. I was extremely busy.
Ruark: For one of those semesters, I took a full course load at Michigan. I also taught in Michigan and managed all my church responsibilities in addition to practicing law. I was barely keeping my head above water, but overall, it was a positive experience.
The negative takeaway was that when I left the church for good, I only returned for things like hearing my granddaughter sing in a Christmas choir. The most challenging realization—based on all my church experiences—was that Christians are neither better nor worse than any other religious group. In my legal work, I have interacted with Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, and I studied Judaism at the University of Michigan, working side by side with Jewish classmates. It was a difficult realization to accept because, according to Christian belief, Christians are supposed to have the Spirit of God residing within them. Yet, in practice, that did not seem to make them distinct in any meaningful way.
My study of the New Testament gospels led me to believe that most Christians do not follow a fundamental element of Jesus’ teachings—specifically, he was an apocalyptic prophet who instructed his disciples to relinquish their possessions. Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 make this clear: No man can be my disciple if he does not give up everything he has. Yet, despite this, the people I encountered were still good, and I enjoyed their company.
Being part of a church community has many benefits. You have to take the good along with some of the bad. I don’t know if that answers your question.
Jacobsen: It does. It also provides insight because that perspective has not always been given equal space or respect over the past two decades as a counterbalance in freethought circles, activism, and speaking engagements. We seem to move toward a more balanced cultural commentary from freethought, humanist, and atheist communities.
That’s a good perspective. So, what inspired you to write Three Exorcisms? And what led you to share these particular experiences?
Ruark: The two exorcism experiences were based on personal experience and deeply impacted my psyche.
I love to write and enjoy it very much. Now that I have finished my work at Michigan, I plan to write more. I am giving free expression to the evolution of my thoughts. I’m relieved that most of my Christian friends will never see it. I tried Googling it myself, and it wouldn’t come up unless I used my full name—but when I did, it appeared immediately.
That has always been a sensitive area for me. I do not attempt to lead anyone out of the church or away from their relationship with Christ. Most of my friends are solid Christian believers, and I would never try to persuade them to abandon their faith.
This is a very autobiographical reflection on how my life has evolved. I do not challenge anyone else to experience the same evolution—some might even consider it a devolution. I don’t know.
Jacobsen: How are exorcisms framed in most churches or denominations? How are they viewed theologically, especially in a hermeneutic or analytical sense? And in terms of lived experience, how do people perceive them?
Ruark: Keep in mind that I have only experienced two exorcisms firsthand. Other than that, my knowledge comes from watching movies.
I suspect that much of it involves the subjugation of evil forces and is apocalyptic. If Christ was an apocalyptic prophet—a Jewish apocalyptic prophet—then he engaged in exorcisms according to the Gospels. I believe that involves the subjugation of evil forces and the apocalyptic conflict between good and evil.
This is fundamentally an Enochic idea. Suppose you read the Epistles, the Epistle of Enoch, the Book of the Watchers, and especially the Book of Parables. In that case, you see more than parallels between that theology and Christian apocalyptic theology—you see structural similarities. Structurally, they are the same.
Some primordial events have thrown the world into chaos. This is attributed to Adam’s sin in Christian theology, particularly Romans 5 and 6. In Enochic theology, it is a primordial cosmic event—a war in heaven that plunged the universe and the world into chaos and disorder.
Modern exorcisms are seen as part of the reordering of the world, alleviating that chaos, particularly with the advent of Christ and the power he is believed to wield in the world today. But suppose you ask fifteen or twenty Christians. In that case, you might get fifteen or twenty answers about how they perceive exorcisms.
Jacobsen: And in terms of the reality of the situation—when an individual is reporting what is essentially a supernatural event, whether it is something they are acting out or experiencing as a physiological event—what is happening when you strip away the theological interpretations and supernatural elements?
Ruark: As I indicated in the article, it was easily explained. What I witnessed was theatre. I saw people who were probably under the influence, either emotionally or psychologically. They may have known what was expected of them, or perhaps they viewed it as a dramatic moment in their lives. Some might have even believed it bolstered their significance—that they were important enough for satanic forces to try to control them.
There are all kinds of psychological explanations at play. The Exorcist—the movie—created much of the hoopla surrounding exorcisms. I would be willing to bet that the number of reported exorcisms increased dramatically after that movie.
Of course, exorcisms appear in other films as well. The Exorcism of Emily Rose comes to mind—it was a well-made film. Ultimately, however, this is all part of the cultural phenomenon.
The two Christians I dealt with directly—I was not directly involved, but I was there—were fully immersed in that belief system.
I witnessed everything, but I wasn’t the one conducting the exorcism—thank God—especially on a 14-year-old girl. You can frame it in various ways without appealing to anything supernatural. I will admit that some aspects of exorcisms can be bizarre. Still, I would attribute almost all of them to some form of psychological disorder.
I am neither a psychologist nor claim to be one, but I see no need to invoke supernatural forces. At least, I saw nothing that compelled me to do so.
Jacobsen: How does the clergy class classify these experiences? And how do they whip up hysteria, building a culture of superstition around their supposed powers through incantations, symbols, crosses, and so on?
Ruark: Religion thrives on superstition, if you ask me. This is how they spin it. It has a certain appeal—it makes the exorcist seem courageous, fighting the battles of Christ on his behalf. That is something that appeals to many ministers.
I am not suggesting that there is no sympathy for the person undergoing the exorcism. Even if it is not supernatural, and even if it is purely psychological, there is still real suffering. Some clergy members sincerely want to help, and I do not doubt that. The exorcist I was working with was an interesting guy. For him, it was not just a sense of adventure but a sense of significance.
He saw himself as doing battle with Satan. It made him feel like a powerful and substantial person. A lot of that was probably happening in the two exorcisms I witnessed.
Jacobsen: Some ethical concerns come to mind.
On the one hand, if these cases involve individuals with mental health issues, they are being treated with incantations and supernatural methods. These are people in a highly vulnerable position. That makes them susceptible to abuse and manipulation.
A second issue—not secondary but related—is that in most industries, a small percentage of people are not sincere believers in what they preach. Instead, they are sincere believers in the gullibility of others. The ability to exploit that gullibility is very real.
So, beyond the abstract ethical concerns about treating mental health issues in a harmful way, there is also the question of bad actors—those who, in cultural terms, would be considered con artists. What about those two concerns?
Ruark: Ethics play a role, but the exorcist does not see it that way—because he has put a theological spin on it. He thinks he is helping, but in reality—especially for the 14-year-old girl—he made it worse.
There are clear ethical implications for any clear-thinking person. However, within the framework of religious belief, those ethical considerations are often ignored or reframed as a spiritual battle rather than a case of psychological distress.
You are correct in using the word vulnerable—these people were vulnerable. Maybe they wanted to feel significant, or perhaps they were genuinely experiencing psychological pain. But they looked to a man to help them, which put them in a vulnerable situation, and that vulnerability was exploited and manipulated. That is what I saw happening. The ethical issues are tremendous.
However, strong First Amendment protections in a church setting shield religious leaders from many of those concerns—for better or worse. As a lawyer, I appreciate the First Amendment, but I still agree with you 100% that there are serious ethical considerations here.
Jacobsen: Do priests—or, more broadly, clergy—have any code of conduct regarding this kind of thing?
Ruark: There are so many churches. How many different denominations are there in America alone? Then, you have synagogues, mosques, and countless other religious communities. There are thousands of groups, each with its own beliefs and practices.
Perspectives can vary widely regarding something as emotionally charged as an exorcism. So, a universal code of conduct? No.
As an attorney, I am bound by a code of professional responsibility. If I fail to uphold it, I face professional discipline before the grievance commission. Doctors and psychologists have similar ethical codes that they must follow.
However, the state does not intervene in matters involving clergy. This is part of the separation of church and state.
For example, it is often difficult to sue a clergy member in lawsuits because First Amendment protections are taken very seriously. If you are involved in a church, a lot can happen to you. While many lawsuits have been filed against clergy members, holding them legally accountable is still difficult because of the First Amendment.
The state tends to stay out of church matters. Judges typically back off when a theological issue is raised in a courtroom because they are jurists, not theologians, and “never the twain shall meet.”
This loophole gives church leaders much freedom to manipulate, exploit, and even harm. That is unfortunate, but it is true.
Jacobsen: To clarify, is the direct implication of your statement that you, as a lawyer, are bound by a code of ethics and guidelines while clergy are not? In other words, does that mean you are held to a higher ethical standard than the clergy?
Ruark: Yes, that is true because clergy have no formal, legally binding ethical standards.
Of course, you could point to biblical texts like Titus or 1 and 2 Timothy, which outline moral expectations for church leaders. But in practice, there is no enforceable, standardized code for clergy behaviour the way there is for lawyers, doctors, or psychologists.
It has been a long time since I studied those texts, but there are standards for elders that would apply to clergy. However, there is nothing that the state enforces. No government produces a standard of conduct for clergy.
There are a few laws that affect clergy. As I recall, clergy cannot take advantage of a counselee and engage in a sexual relationship with them. Michigan has a law against that, though I have not looked at it in decades. But beyond that, there is no clear-cut ethical standard dictates how clergy must act in a given situation.
That kind of standard does not exist except within individual churches or denominations. Some likely have codes of conduct, but we all know those are constantly violated.
Jacobsen: There is well-documented, decades-long evidence of both cover-ups and abuse by clergy across major Christian denominations. I am working with researchers—themselves victims—who have been abused by clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy, the second-largest Christian denomination. The Catholic Church gets the most attention because it is the largest. Hence, media coverage makes sense from that standpoint.
From a professional perspective, does this evidentiary history raise further concerns about ethics and conduct in these settings, especially given the lack of ethical guidelines and the potential for abuse?
Ruark: The Catholic Church is an interesting case. I am a big movie fan, and Calvary is an excellent commentary on this topic, particularly in distinguishing between institutional religion and personal spirituality.
There have been thousands of documented instances of clergy abuse. And there is a certain dynamic at play.
I can speak for Protestant churches and clergy who attended seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary. The ministry tends to attract a certain mindset. In my opinion, the professional ministry offers an excellent opportunity for neurotic individuals to set up positions of power and abuse people. This dynamic always exists.
Now, going back to the Catholic Church, even though clergy abuse is widespread, I am not entirely sure why it happens so frequently in that setting. Is it because Catholic priests are not married? I have no idea—I have not studied that in depth. I am not a psychologist, and I do not claim to be.
However, abuse is not unique to the Catholic Church. There is plenty of abuse in Baptist churches and in any religious structure where the pastor, minister, or priest is placed in a position of extreme authority over the laity—similar to how Catholic priests function as the vicars of Christ. That hierarchical system attracts the wrong kinds of people to the ministry.
So you see these patterns of abuse in churches where institutional structures emphasize a single leader at the helm. And yet, despite these scandals, churches—especially the Catholic Church—continue to persist. I do not know if I would call it “thriving,” but it continues to exist.
With these churches’ money, power, and institutional backing, that is probably not a huge surprise.
But religion is a strange thing. It can be completely exposed as a vacuous enterprise, yet it thrives. There will always be a place for it because religion meets fundamental human needs.
No matter how much evidence, a person’s psychology makes it incredibly difficult to leave the church. Most people do not react to these issues rationally—they respond viscerally and emotionally. Moving someone out of the church takes a lot, and most people never leave. They do not even question it.
They assume that what they have been taught, what they were born into, must be true. I have no idea if that fullyanswered your question, but you raised some important issues.
Here’s the thing.
I was raised in a Christian home, and my Christian heritage goes back two hundred years. I recently visited the gravestone of my great-great-great-grandmother, who died around 1855. Her headstone includes a Christian inscription about living in Jesus, which was nice.
I was raised in this Christian atmosphere. My grandfather and my parents were good people. My parents were not what I would call faithful churchgoers, but my grandparents certainly were.
I spent much time with my grandparents—a satisfying, meaningful time in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. We read the Bible, attended church services, and did other things.
I attended Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, and had a positive experience there. Next, Nancy and I are leaving for Dallas next week to visit my old college roommate.
Dallas was a positive experience overall. There were many intelligent people there and in college. By the way, I studied with Norman Geisler. He was a fine man. In the 1980s, he was the foremost Christian apologist in the world. He was a brilliant scholar but also a genuinely nice guy.
I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1984. I was in ministry for three years, from 1985 to 1988. By 1988, I was frustrated with it. I had left the church, and that emotional tie was broken. The financial tie was also broken—I no longer needed the church in my life to survive. I am analytical. I was wrestling with difficult theological questions and wasn’t getting satisfying answers.
No matter how much evidence, a person’s psychology makes it incredibly difficult to leave the church. Most people do not react to these issues rationally—they respond viscerally and emotionally. Moving someone out of the church takes a lot, and most people never leave. They do not even question it.
They assume that what they have been taught, what they were born into, must be true. I have no idea if that fullyanswered your question, but you raised some important issues.
Jacobsen: From your experience, you attended seminary, and seminarians are typically elite intellectuals. They are intelligent people.
Ruark: Yes, that is true. There were many intelligent people when I was in seminary, including the professors.
Jacobsen: A significant benefit of seminary is its sophisticated hermeneutical and textual analysis. It helps scholars better understand which parts of religious texts are historical, which are myths mixed with history, moral teachings, etc. Regardless of one’s motivations, seminaries are quite good at that.
But how did you go from that cultural background to seminary, growing up in the church and living a religious life? I am shifting away from the ethical issues and historical abuses in the church and more toward your lived experience—growing up in the church, living the seminary life, and having that as a backdrop.
Ruark: Here’s the thing.
I was raised in a Christian home, and my Christian heritage goes back two hundred years. I recently visited the gravestone of my great-great-great-grandmother, who died around 1855. Her headstone includes a Christian inscription about living in Jesus, which was nice.
I was raised in this Christian atmosphere. My grandfather and my parents were good people. My parents were not what I would call faithful churchgoers, but my grandparents certainly were.
I spent much time with my grandparents—a satisfying, meaningful time in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. We read the Bible, attended church services, and did other things.
I attended Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, and had a positive experience there. Next, Nancy and I are leaving for Dallas next week to visit my old college roommate.
I was in the pulpit for twenty-five months, from February 2004 to February 2006. I am unsure why I did it, but I spent those two years in ministry. When I left that pulpit, I left the church altogether because the evidence was overwhelming. My experience at the University of Michigan only confirmed what I had already begun to realize. You can easily explain the origins of Christianity from a historical perspective.
The church began as a Jewish apocalyptic movement. I call it an Enochic movement because Enochic theology was behind it all. As Paul and his churches moved into a Hellenistic world, away from Judea and into the Mediterranean, present-day Turkey, and eventually Rome, they absorbed pagan influences. And, as you probably know, dying and rising gods were everywhere in the pagan world—they were all over the Mediterranean Basin. Once Christianity entered that cultural arena, we saw the development of the resurrection narrative and other Hellenistic influences shaping Christian theology.
In other words, I evaluated the evidence more objectively. I cannot claim to be completely objective, but my analysis was certainly more critical. And for me, the evidence became overwhelming. I could not stay in the church. That was my journey, and I view it autobiographically. I do not expect anyone else to think the way I do.
My attitude toward religion is this: if it makes you more gracious, forgiving, compassionate, and kind, then more power to you.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that you are more of a friend of truth than of Jesus. The first thing that came to my mind was Plato’s quote about being a friend of truth. In that sense, you are more of an epistemic Platonist than an epistemic Christian.
Ruark: You know what? I read Epictetus and the Stoics quite a bit. I like Marcus Aurelius especially. I get many ideas from Greek philosophy so that I will take that as a compliment.
Jacobsen: It was intended as such. So, let’s move on—what has been the response to your exorcism article? What have your Christian friends and colleagues said about it?
Ruark: Honestly, very few people I know are aware that I wrote it. I have only received one immediate response, and that was from someone who praised it, saying, “That’s one of the best articles I’ve ever read.” I don’t know if that is true, but it was nice to hear. Beyond that, the only other response I received was when Melissa told me that someone wanted to interview me—which turned out to be you.
Jacobsen: That tends to happen.
Ruark: I have no idea how the broader audience will react. I might get panned in the next issue of Free Inquiry. They might say, “That guy is full of it.”
And yet, I think the future belongs to the atheists. I do. Two hundred years from now, as science continues to explain the universe, the God idea may still exist, but it will be completely redefined. Any Christians still around will be found in small pockets, little conclaves of religious people clinging to their quaint ideas.
Yet, religion may persist because, as I have repeatedly said, it meets certain basic human needs. For that reason, by the way, it deserves some respect. If it is a human enterprise, it should be acknowledged as such. However, I still believe the future belongs to those who are not religious.
Jacobsen: What about employment impacts? If someone lives in a small community with only a few churches and they are known for their criticism of religion, how does that affect them?
Ruark: In that case, you have a real problem. In small-town America, you will be seen as an outcast, an oddball—that weird guy who doesn’t belong. This will likely affect your social standing, your relationships in the community, and possibly even employment. If your job is local, I think you could face serious issues.
However, in larger metropolitan areas, you can get along just fine. Most of the time, at least. I am part of the legal community in Detroit, and the only time we ever know what someone believes is on Ash Wednesday when the Catholics show up with ash crosses on their foreheads. Other than that, no one ever brings it up. No one asks. It is simply not a big issue anymore—which, by the way, tells you something right there.
Jacobsen: What about seminary? What was the gossip around individuals who lost their faith while studying it at the highest levels?
Ruark: Where I was, at Dallas Seminary, I can guarantee that plenty of guys left the ministry and went into law. That is a favourite profession for former seminarians. Others left for different careers, either because their lives evolved unexpectedly or because they became frustrated or disillusioned—which was my experience.
If you were in seminary openly voicing these kinds of concerns, particularly at Dallas, which is a fairly conservative seminary, a fundamentalist evangelical school, you would not have been tolerated. You would have been removed.
At Dallas Seminary, you had to sign a statement of faith, just as ministers do when they enter a church or denomination. You were expected to toe the line.
As a freethinker, that is a major concern. It is one of the reasons I left the ministry—my faith had shifted. I no longer viewed things as I used to, so I left quietly. I did not create a ruckus or cause conflict—I left.
Jacobsen: What are the things in those contracts, statements of faith, or covenant agreements?
Ruark: It depends on what church or denomination you’re in. Sometimes, it could be the Apostles’ Creed or the Fundamentals of the Faith. As I recall, it typically includes a doctrinal framework—a belief in God, Christ as His Son, the idea that Christ died for our sins, substitutionary atonement or some form of atonement theology, that He rose from the dead, and that He is coming back.
This has always been a prominent doctrinal statement among Christians, and these core ideas appear in most faith statements. Some Reformed tradition churches might add doctrines of predestination, for example. It depends on the denomination—churches have different minister and parishioner requirements.
Some churches do not require parishioners to sign anything at all. You can walk into any megachurch and never be asked to sign a statement of faith—it is not a big deal. But if you start voicing concerns or challenging beliefs, you will likely be schooled, disciplined, or expected to leave. I am quite confident of that. The religious mindset does not entertain dissent.
The First Amendment does not apply to the church. Churches have broad protections under the First Amendment.
Jacobsen: I have heard of cases where someone was asked to leave for violating church doctrine. For example, I heard of a case where a woman working at a Christian school—not a teacher, just regular staff—was asked to leave after she got divorced. This might have even happened in Canada, but I do not believe it was widely reported. I grew up in an evangelical community. I remember someone talking about it while working at a restaurant in town. The school’s biblical framework did not permit divorce, so they politely told her that she had to leave for violating the covenant agreement.
Jacobsen: That kind of thing still happens?
Ruark: It is probably not as common in American churches as it once was, but I know of at least one person publicly disciplined after divorcing his wife. That still happens in conservative churches.
And here’s the thing—that kind of action is protected under the First Amendment. Church leaders cannot say anything they want, but they have extensive protections when dealing with parishioners. If a pastor were to stand in the pulpit and say something about me that was slanderous or defamatory, I could sue them—because I am not a church member. They would not have First Amendment protection in that case. But for their parishioners, they have much legal leeway.
Jacobsen: What are some of your worst stories about church discipline?
Ruark: Divorce plays a major role in these cases. There is a strong stigma against divorce in conservative churches, and that creates problems for people who leave marriages. That is one of the most common reasons for church discipline.
Other people who choose to live differently from traditional church teachings—such as individuals in churches that oppose homosexuality—often face serious consequences if they come out as gay or decide to transition. That can create a major problem within the church community.
Certain churches would not hesitate to expose what they consider immoral behaviour publicly. Other churches, however, may fear taking a strong stance, especially given today’s political and social climate in America. Church leaders always have to make this decision.
I can guarantee you that in any sizable elder board—let’s say in a Baptist church with twelve men on the board—there will be at least a couple of them who do not want to take a public stance due to liability concerns. More legally savvy people tend to be more cautious about making public statements.
On the other hand, some leaders will also say, “I don’t care about liability. We have to do God’s work.” And so, they go ahead and make a public statement anyway. These things still happen in American churches, though not as frequently as they once did.
Jacobsen: Regarding theology and politics, we have seen reactionary political movements emerging from certain evangelical Protestant Christian circles, seeking to align themselves with federal and state power. How common is this among other denominations? Is this a conscious effort among Christians in general, or are mainly select denominations reading biblical texts selectively literalistically?
Ruark: I think all churches read the Bible selectively to some extent. But yes, many conservative churches—especially evangelicals—have been aligned with the Republican Party for a long time, primarily due to the abortion issue.
Many of these churches have also aligned with Donald Trump, whom they consider to be more conservative than, for example, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. Even though Biden identifies as a Catholic, many evangelicals do not consider him a true Christian leader.
So, in a way, conservative religion—with its moral values—and conservative politics—with its perceived moral stance—tend to walk hand in hand. One reinforces the other.
Donald Trump understood this dynamic very well. He made a big deal out of his faith, though I am not saying his faith is insincere—I have no idea whether it is. But what I do know is that he used religious rhetoric to win votes and get elected—for better or worse.
That kind of political use of religion is nothing new. We use religion to get what we want—that has always been the case.
It is important to note that more liberal churches are also politically involved but in the opposite direction. I do not particularly like the term liberal, though I consider myself liberal in the sense that I have been liberated from certain belief systems. However, progressive churches do exist and are heavily involved in activism—just not in the same way as conservative churches.
It’s like a civil war, where both sides fight each other and claim to be acting for God. Both sides pray to what is the same God, and yet they are shooting each other.
Jacobsen: To quote George Carlin, ‘Someone’s gonna be fucking disappointed.’
Ruark: Now you’re going old school on me. But Carlin, regarding religion, is about as good as it gets.
Jacobsen: That was his last special, too.
Ruark: What was it?
Jacobsen: 2008, I believe. But let’s get back to the main focus. People are shaking, convulsing, screaming—going through all the theatrics of an exorcism. They go through the motions and receive their so-called “help.” Fine. Great. Whatever. But how do they interpret their performance or experience?
Ruark: Christians—especially the more fundamentalist ones—tend to be paranoid to begin with. And it’s not just about the devil and demons. There is this deep-rooted belief that the world is out to get them, that they are constantly persecuted, and that they are always under attack. So when they experience something as dramatic as an exorcism, they typically interpret it as a battle of good versus evil, a confrontation between God and Satan.
For those who take their spirituality seriously, an exorcism is not just a personal experience but proof that they are on the right side of a cosmic war. They see themselves warriors in a spiritual battle, proud to stand for truth and righteousness. That kind of mindset is deeply ingrained in evangelical and charismatic traditions.
I remember a specific case, but I won’t say exactly where because I don’t want to embarrass the person. But it’s a relevant story. I was working at a place, and a colleague—an extremely devout Christian—was telling me about someone in his family who had lost their faith. The way he spoke about it, you could tell he saw it as a tragedy. There wasn’t any explicit condemnation, but you could hear it in his tone—as if this person had been lost to the dark side.
Later, knowing that I was not religious, I decided to joke with him a little. We were alone, standing near a car door, and he was many yards away when I casually said, “Join us.” I was joking, referencing something else entirely, but his reaction was deadly serious.
He turned to me, looked me straight in the eye, and, in a low, intense voice, said, “I am not one.” It was chilling. His response had no humour, no hint of playfulness—just absolute conviction. That moment stuck with me because it revealed how deeply some Christians internalize this worldview. For them, it is not just about beliefs—it is about identity, loyalty, and an ongoing cosmic struggle.
Jacobsen: So, about 49% Christian in Canada, if you track a line of best fit?
Ruark: I can’t remember the exact statistics in America, but they’re similar. We are becoming increasingly secularized.
Jacobsen: I was told today that around under two-thirds of the population identifies as Christian. It’s hard to quantify, though; different organizations might give you different numbers.
Ruark: But the overall trend is clear—we are becoming more secular. Your Bible will be very short-lived at this rate.
Jacobsen: What other social phenomena are tightly linked with Christian religion in the United States? If people want to play that 1990s identity politics game, how does Christian identity factor into social issues?
Ruark: Well, health care is certainly one area—especially when it comes to abortion. That is a prime example, but other aspects of health care are tied up with religion. That would be a big one.
I’m trying to think—it’s a hard question to answer off the top of my head. Certainly, employment is not as much of an issue since we have laws against using religion as a hiring or firing criterion. In theory, it should not be a factor. However, certain companies do not hesitate to advertise their faith.
For a long time, on one of the turnpikes in Ohio or Pennsylvania, I remember seeing a big sign on the roof of a small business that said, “Jesus is the Answer.” That kind of public religious messaging still happens. But legally, in America, you cannot discriminate in employment decisions based on religion.
Jacobsen: What about other social phenomena?
Ruark: Well, there are the arts, but they are becoming less influenced by Christianity. However, sports—especially baseball and the Super Bowl—have seen a rise in public religious expression. It is becoming very prominent in athletics in general.
You’re always seeing athletes thank Jesus for their victories, which—well, we don’t have to get into that—is absurd.
Jacobsen: To bring up Carlin’s point again, ‘Someone’s gonna be fucking disappointed.’
Ruark: Anyway, that happens all the time. So, sports, especially professional sports, are one of the most prominent examples of religion as a social phenomenon. Whether on the football field, the gridiron, or elsewhere, athletes always thank Jesus for what happens during the game.
That is one of the clearest examples of religion intertwining with a major social institution.
Jacobsen: What are you finding in Enochic Judaism and Paul’s apocalyptic theology? Those are some obscure concepts mashed together.
Ruark: You share the same idea of the origin of evil in Enochic and Pauline theology. Both traditions see the world as chaotic and disorderly and need redemption.
This contrasts with the temple priests of Second Temple Judaism, who viewed the world as perfect. They believed everything would be in order if you obeyed the law. The Enochic authors completely rejected that view. They saw the world as imperfect as possible, beyond redemption in its current state.
This is why Paul refers to “this present evil age” in Galatians 1:4. It is the same theological concept—a corrupt world in desperate need of divine intervention.
Enochic theology calls a messianic figure the Anointed One, the Son of Man, or the Righteous One. This is strikingly similar to the Christ figure in Christianity.
My research focuses on election—who is considered part of the chosen people in Enochic literature. This theme is also found in Romans 9, 10, and 11, where Paul speaks of a righteous remnant, a group of elected individuals. In both Paul’s writings and Enoch’s, election is not based on obedience to the law but on something else.
Enoch’s elect are those who bless the Lord of Spirits, the high God. This trinitarian theology—where there is a high God and a messianic figure—is almost identical to Paul’s view, where he speaks of “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So structurally, the theology of Paul’s apocalyptic worldview and Enochic Judaism is incredibly similar. We are now stepping into New Testament criticism, a fascinating topic. Like myself, more freethinking scholars are drawn to these historical connections.
Ruark: There used to be a group called the Dutch Radicals. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them.
Jacobsen: I am Dutch, though I don’t know if I’m a radical.
Ruark: You might like these guys. They were active in the last third of the nineteenth century, mostly in the Netherlands. The Dutch Radicals doubted the existence of Jesus, much like what is happening today in certain academic circles. They fall under what we now call mythicism.
Jacobsen: Right? They would be considered mythicists today, correct?
Ruark: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: There’s a prominent mythicist group in Milwaukee called Mythicist Milwaukee.
Ruark: I lived in Milwaukee for six years—where I was in ministry for the first time and attended law school. Suppose you read someone like Robert M. Price, who wrote Deconstructing Jesus and other books. In that case, you get a good idea of mythicism. Price leans in that direction if he hasn’t said Jesus was a myth.
The Dutch Radicals went further. Many of them doubted Paul’s existence, and some even argued that Paul’s epistles were second-century creations. Based on the Greek text, my study of Galatians has led me to believe that the letter was compiled by a redactor in the second century, after the publication of Acts, which probably didn’t occur until around 130 CE.
If Acts were written in the early second century, that would push Galatians as late as 150 CE or even 160 CE. These were the kinds of critical ideas that the Dutch Radicals were exploring. But today, it’s hard to get a hearing for these theories because of the continued influence of religion in biblical scholarship.
You can’t just express these ideas in journals like the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) or Vetus Testamentum. They don’t tolerate these kinds of challenges to traditional scholarship.
Jacobsen: Among the professional class of philosophers of religion, in your professional opinion, do you think there is much self-censorship?
Ruark: I believe there is. Certain ideas are just not entertained. You cannot bring them up.
When I was in seminary, we studied New Testament theology using a textbook by Donald Guthrie, a comprehensive work on the subject. Guthrie made a statement that stuck with me: When an idea is deeply entrenched in scholarship, it requires extraordinary evidence to overturn it.
It’s ridiculous, but that’s how the academic establishment protects its views. They don’t allow competition and don’t tolerate threats to traditional positions. That’s just how it works.
Do you know William Lane Craig, the Christian apologist?
Jacobsen argues that Christians are more free to analyze and critique their beliefs than atheists or naturalists. What would you say to that?
Ruark: It’s just another way to protect his position.
Jacobsen: He says, “You just don’t know what you’re talking about because you’re not a Christian.”
Ruark: This is a circular argument. According to Craig’s logic, only Christians are “enlightened,” so only they truly understand the evidence. That’s just a way of shutting down debate.
Jacobsen: That’s similar to his argument about how, even in the face of counterarguments, Christians can rely on the witness of the Holy Spirit as their ultimate justification.
Ruark: My point about Craig is that he always appeals to most New Testament scholars as if that proves anything. But it doesn’t prove anything. That is an observation, not an argument. But that is how religion works.
I was working on an article about how Christian apologists argue and discussed how they have stacked the deck in their favour. They have written their own rules in a way that benefits them, and they take advantage of that at every opportunity.
Jacobsen: What about Alvin Plantinga? Craig admires him.
Ruark: He is a Christian philosopher who converted to Christianity. Is he still alive?
Jacobsen: Born in 1932—no death noted. He is 92 years old.
Ruark: Wow. So he is still around. I don’t know if he is still active.
Jacobsen: He is known for his modal ontological argument and evolutionary argument against naturalism. Have you ever considered that argument—the idea that if naturalism is true, it undermines itself?
Ruark: I would have to review it. I haven’t thought about it in decades. This is the first time I have heard Plantinga’s name since Dr. Geisler mentioned him in the 1980s.
I am not saying he isn’t a prominent figure, but I have been preoccupied with other things—law and my studies at Michigan—so I really couldn’t address anything about Plantinga’s argument off the top of my head.
Jacobsen: What do you make of what I would call inflationary taxation on Anglophones—basically, how has the English language been weighted down by all these academic and theological terms? Angelology, demonology, pneumatology, Christology, hamartiology, patristics, mysticism, eschatology, soteriology, Mariology, ecclesiology… and so on.
Ruark: Yes, I studied almost all of those, except Mariology, during my time in seminary. I also took a course in angelology.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Ruark: According to the biblical text, there are angels, which is clear. But I am much more interested now in the Jewish concept of angels, particularly as heavenly beings. There is an argument out there that Christ was originally considered to be an angel before being elevated—that in Philippians 2, he ascended, and then suddenly, he was described as having risen from the dead.
The idea of the resurrection evolved, but it may have begun with Christ being seen as a mediating figure, an angelic or heavenly being. In Judaism, angels were sometimes worshiped as divine or celestial entities.
We have created a science of all these “-ologies” to make theology appear more credible. I don’t know, but I have studied most of them. I took courses in angelology, demonology, eschatology, Christology, and theology as part of the theological curriculum, especially at a conservative seminary.
Jacobsen: Are these topics widely discussed, or are they mainly limited to specialist scholars?
Ruark: It depends. In church settings, some parts of theology are emphasized more than others. Eschatology, for example—especially in conservative Protestant churches in America—is always a major topic. Discussions about the Second Coming of Christ, the end times, and similar topics are common, and plenty of seminars exist.
It was probably even more prominent in the 1950s, but these theological emphases tend to track cultural anxieties. When there is widespread paranoia or fear, churches must persuade believers that hope is coming—that Christ will return soon.
Before I left the church, I heard countless sermons about “Jesus is coming again.” I remember hearing them every summer at the youth camp I attended as a kid; they had a formative influence on my life.
Theology, at its core, is a way of systematizing the Christian faith. I understand the impulse. And the more conservative the church, the more they tend to structure theology systematically.
At the very least, theology requires imagination. You cannot study something like the Nicene Creed without appreciating the creativity of these early theologians. Even if the modern world is moving past these beliefs, they are still part of the history of ideas.
Jacobsen: What about reactions to the bombshell that Darwin dropped in the mid-1800s with On the Origin of Species? How did different Christian groups respond through acceptance, rejection, or half-measures?
Ruark: That’s an interesting topic. I attended William Jennings Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, where the Scopes Trial occurred in 1925.
Jacobsen: I went through H. L. Mencken’s reportage on the Scopes Trial, and he was a big inspiration. As a journalist, he was sharp and witty.
Ruark: He was unafraid to call things as he saw them. He had a sharp sense of humour.
Jacobsen: He did, though I think he could be mean sometimes—particularly when that fellow died. But overall, he was making valid points, and his flowery language is still delightful to read. You could remove the mean parts, and his work would still hold up well.
Ruark: He was harsh on Bryan. If you watch the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind—with Fredric March and Spencer Tracy—you see that they also portray Bryan harshly. Spencer Tracy was superb, as always, and the film is excellent, but it doesn’t give Bryan a fair shake.
That said, Bryan College is a fundamentalist school. Today, it’s essentially a training ground for people who will be Christian educators or enter some other religious vocation.
But I have always appreciated Bryan—William Jennings Bryan, that is—because he was essentially the founder of the modern Democratic Party. He was called “The Great Commoner” because he identified with low-income people, the working class, and those on the margins of society. He wanted to expand access to the benefits of American life and bring as many people as possible under its economic and political umbrella.
Yet, Bryan College, a deeply conservative fundamentalist institution, extols Bryan as a champion of the faith—primarily because of his role in Dayton and the Scopes Trial. But in reality, I think he was wrong constitutionally. His position was bigoted, and he refused to entertain the idea of evolution being taught in a science classroom.
That thinking is obsolete in American education today—and I imagine it is also in Canadian education. But we are still fighting battles to keep religion out of public schools. Every generation, a new court case emerges, with someone claiming that Genesis is science—when in reality, Genesis is a myth, as is so much of the Bible.
But that is the tension between religion and culture.
Jacobsen: Have I missed anything?
Ruark: No. It has been an interesting conversation.
Religion has had many positive effects on society but has also created serious problems. My personal view is that as long as half the world believes the other half is going to hell, we are going to struggle to create lasting peace—whether in this country or the world at large.
But that is just the nature of religious thought.
Jacobsen: Well, on that note, Ron, it was lovely to meet you. Thank you for your time today.
Ruark: Your work is important and deserves attention. I did some Googling, and I appreciate what you’re doing.
Jacobsen: Oh, thanks, man.
Ruark: I know you’re on the humanist side, and I wish you the best. Enjoy Canada. I love it.
Jacobsen: Oh, especially now—it’s great.
Ruark: It is. And when I am in Canada, by the way, it is always for good reasons. I have always felt that Canada is a peaceful place—it feels different from America, where we always fight about something. So yeah, I think Canada is a great place to be. All right, Scott, thank you very much—I appreciate it.
How can the Roman Catholic Church in Canada renew its image in spite of a inevitable and decisive declination to obscurity?
Nuns, nothing but the purity of virginal self-sacrifice for their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unburdened by the allegations ubiquitous over decades about the priest class within the Roman Catholic Church — until now.
The Roman Catholic Church has been facing profound sexual scandals by those deemed the intellectual and ceremonial protectors of the Faith, the priest class. Unfortunately, as we’re seeing, there’s tremendous publicity about this intellectual and ceremonial status, and then the reality, unfortunately. I wouldn’t claim to be a moral exemplar or, necessarily, want to be one. It’s disingenuous. I, like most of you, am just a Canadian citizen with concerns.
It is important, however, to point to systems of power, often unquestioned, and wealth and ask critical questions or simply speak the truth for an accuracy in the historical record. The Roman Catholic Church was a co-arm of the Government of Canada in oppression of the Indigenous. Not only those, but the young in general too, I do not mean ideologically alone. This goes without statement.
Now, the Roman Catholic Church has been declining in Canadian society for decades. The most precipitous decline has been between 2001 and 2021 based on solid census data, Statistics Canada. The data was 12,793,125 Roman Catholics in 2001 at 43.2% of the population and then 10,799,070 at 29.9%. So, in both absolute numbers and in percent of the population, the Roman Catholic Church is dying off.
How will this affect public policy, politics, and so on? The moral stature of the Roman Catholic Church has been devastated internationally with the effects of these crimes coming to light, which were deliberately withheld from the Catholic laity and from the public. To me, in some sense, that’s neither good nor bad, but the truth needs speaking.Play VideoDon’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
It goes to an old Carl Sagan point: Where does this leave us (cosmically and) in Canada? It means simply this: we’re on our own. For any justice and moral developments, it sits with us. And yet, those news items continue to hit the public. Naturally, those declines in the total number of Catholics in Canada have a corresponding problem with acquisition of a new class of nuns.
So, this brings us to the original stipulation at the top of the article, i.e., the image of nuns. Not only is this class of women declining precipitously over decades, they have encountered a few potshots in the media.
Tyler Griffin in the Toronto Star described the arrest and charge of the 97-year-old nun going back decades. To be clear, the nun was charged, Francoise Seguin of Ottawa.
The nun is supposed to be in Moosonee on December 5 for court. Seguin is not a one-off either.
Brett Forester reported how several Canadian nuns have been getting similar stories coming out about them. To be clear, secular people don’t like these stories. There may be flippant jokes around hypocrisy, which is grounded in the truth; an institution proclaiming high moral ground, all the while oppressing and committing crimes then trying to hide the facts.
The fact of the matter for secular people: There shouldn’t have to be these events in the first place. Churches could be moral exemplars, could be institutions representative of a philosophy of love and forgiveness, of their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Yet, it’s not there.
It takes dissidents like Rev. Gretta Vosper to drag the churches into the 21st century. For her, it is the United Church of Canada. For the Catholic Church, who is it? Is it Tammy Peterson? She seems like a nice lady, smart person, but her approach is different than what is necessary.
The Roman Catholic Church continues to shrink, and will continue its declines reflective of its moral decline, because of the simple fact: Moral degeneration within its ranks over decades from the founding of the country and failure to account for crimes.Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Regular Canadians are not stupid; they’re just busy with getting by the days of the week at work and at home. They know this. They know people who have been affected or know of people who have been affected by the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church in the country.
The question remains: In spite of the inevitable decline of the Roman Catholic Church and most Christian denominations in Canada, as the Christian population will likely be less than half of the population somewhere in 2024, maybe 2025, what will be the morally uplifting response of the older generations of Christians for newer generations of Christians within the multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious country everyone cherishes Canada for — and the international community of Member States of the United Nations knows Canada as now?
As a non-religious person, I have hope in the moral renewal of the Roman Catholic Church in Canadian society. Proper accounting for crimes of some priests and nuns against individuals and the Church against Indigenous peoples can be the first major, practical step in doing so.
Canada deserves better; the victims deserve better; Catholic hierarchs deserve better; and, most importantly, the laity of the Roman Catholic Church deserve better.
It goes to an old Carl Sagan point: Where does this leave us (cosmically and) in Canada? It means simply this: we’re on our own. For any justice and moral developments, it sits with us. And yet, those news items continue to hit the public. Naturally, those declines in the total number of Catholics in Canada have a corresponding problem with acquisition of a new class of nuns.
So, this brings us to the original stipulation at the top of the article, i.e., the image of nuns. Not only is this class of women declining precipitously over decades, they have encountered a few potshots in the media.
Tyler Griffin in the Toronto Star described the arrest and charge of the 97-year-old nun going back decades. To be clear, the nun was charged, Francoise Seguin of Ottawa.
The nun is supposed to be in Moosonee on December 5 for court. Seguin is not a one-off either.
Brett Forester reported how several Canadian nuns have been getting similar stories coming out about them. To be clear, secular people don’t like these stories. There may be flippant jokes around hypocrisy, which is grounded in the truth; an institution proclaiming high moral ground, all the while oppressing and committing crimes then trying to hide the facts.
The fact of the matter for secular people: There shouldn’t have to be these events in the first place. Churches could be moral exemplars, could be institutions representative of a philosophy of love and forgiveness, of their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Yet, it’s not there.
It takes dissidents like Rev. Gretta Vosper to drag the churches into the 21st century. For her, it is the United Church of Canada. For the Catholic Church, who is it? Is it Tammy Peterson? She seems like a nice lady, smart person, but her approach is different than what is necessary.
The Roman Catholic Church continues to shrink, and will continue its declines reflective of its moral decline, because of the simple fact: Moral degeneration within its ranks over decades from the founding of the country and failure to account for crimes.
Regular Canadians are not stupid; they’re just busy with getting by the days of the week at work and at home. They know this. They know people who have been affected or know of people who have been affected by the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church in the country.
The question remains: In spite of the inevitable decline of the Roman Catholic Church and most Christian denominations in Canada, as the Christian population will likely be less than half of the population somewhere in 2024, maybe 2025, what will be the morally uplifting response of the older generations of Christians for newer generations of Christians within the multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious country everyone cherishes Canada for — and the international community of Member States of the United Nations knows Canada as now?
As a non-religious person, I have hope in the moral renewal of the Roman Catholic Church in Canadian society. Proper accounting for crimes of some priests and nuns against individuals and the Church against Indigenous peoples can be the first major, practical step in doing so.
Canada deserves better; the victims deserve better; Catholic hierarchs deserve better; and, most importantly, the laity of the Roman Catholic Church deserve better.
David Chaffetz is an independent scholar and writer whose work bridges traditional scholarship and modern interpretation, offering fresh perspectives on the cultural and geopolitical forces that have shaped Asia. A graduate of Harvard University, where he studied under renowned Inner Asia specialists Richard Frye and Joseph Fletcher, and later a student of Edward Allworth at Columbia, Chaffetz has spent more than four decades immersed in the study of Middle Eastern and Inner Asian history.
His landmark 1981 travelogue, A Journey through Afghanistan, praised by Owen Lattimore and republished several times, launched a literary and scholarly career focused on the overlooked narratives of Asia. His recent works, including Three Asian Divas and Raiders, Rulers, and Traders: The Horse and the Rise of Empires, examine the vital roles played by women, trade, and equine culture in transmitting and transforming Asian civilization.
Chaffetz has traveled extensively through Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Russia, conducting research in over ten languages, including Persian, Turkish, and Russian. A regular contributor to the Asian Review of Books, he has also written for the South China Morning Post and the Nikkei Asian Review. He is a member of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs, the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the Explorers Club, and Lisbon’s Gremio Literario. He currently divides his time between Lisbon and Paris.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’d like to start with something unexpected: What does fermented mare’s milk taste like in Mongolia?
David Chaffetz: Initially, it tastes rather good. Let’s say the attack, as a wine taster might say, is very refreshing. The problem is that it has an aftertaste of urine. So, if you keep drinking it—and that’s the idea—you always enjoy it. But the minute you stop, you want to rinse your mouth with water, which is unavailable.
Jacobsen: Regarding your latest book, Raiders, Rulers, and Traders, what initially inspired your focus on horses’ role in shaping empires and global trade networks?
Chaffetz: A long time ago, I read a book that was very influential in the 1960s and 1970s called The Rise of the West by William McNeill at the University of Chicago. He was one of the first scholars to address a popular audience about the amazing interactions across the Eurasian continent—between China, India, the Middle East, and Europe. Before that, people didn’t talk much about what China, for example, owed to the West or to India, what India owed West, or what the debt of the West to China and India.
He had these maps showing gear wheels—bold, graphic gear wheels—connecting all the countries. But these graphics left the obvious question unanswered: How did such a gearbox function? In other words, how did these far-flung civilizations communicate with one another and connect? And above all, why did they need to communicate and connect? That issue has been on my mind for more than 50 years.
Through extensive travel in Asia, I observed that most countries have very prominent horse cultures. The horse seems to play an important role in the arts, sports, and social status—at least traditional social status. Today, if you talk about the horse as a social status symbol in China, you’re talking about the nouveau riche who play polo. Traditionally, the horse was an extremely important marker of social place in China, as reflected in the arts.
I realized that William McNeill’s gearbox, which connected Asian civilizations with Europe, was made up of horses. The horse was not only the mechanism for connecting civilizations—it was also one of the primary reasons those civilizations did business with one another. The peripheral countries around the Eurasian continent were poor in horses. The center of Eurasia—Inner Asia and Central Asia—was rich in horses. That gave rise to a trading system connecting the Eurasian continent and making it a kind of global civilization for centuries.
Jacobsen: How far back does the evolution of horse domestication go?
Chaffetz: So, it’s a very gradual process. One of the fascinating things is that it’s so gradual, but we can see so many steps that we can imagine, century by century, people making these huge leaps forward in technology and best practices.
There’s a long-standing debate as to whether we’re talking about domestication occurring around 5,000 BC or around 3,000 BC. The current state of the play says that hunters in Central Asia—Kazakhstan or Southern Russia—possibly domesticated a breed of horses 5,000 years ago, moving from butchering them to herding them. But then those horses and those people died out, without successors. Then, another attempt to domesticate horses started 3,000 years ago, which was more successful. Those horses are the unique ancestors of all our domesticated horses today.
I like the later start date because we don’t see people riding into history—literally riding into history—until about 2,000 BC. So, if horses had been domesticated in 5,000 BC, what the hell were they doing for 2,000 or 3,000 years that no one saw them show up? It just seems improbable to me.
Anyway, so they’re domesticated in the sense that we begin to herd them as livestock, interfering with their reproduction, culling animals that don’t give much milk, culling males that are too aggressive, and winding up with mares that give a lot of milk and stallions which are not so wild and don’t run off with the mares.
To herd those animals, we have to ride them because they can run much faster than humans—unlike sheep, cows, and goats. So inevitably, we have to ride them. We begin moving with them over fairly considerable distances. We get better at riding.
At some point, we adopt them for pulling carts—fast little carts—probably originally for racing, around 2,000 BC. A couple of hundred years after that—so now 1,800 BC—chariot riding has become quite a thing, also for racing, prestige, but inevitably for warfare. This more or less coincides with the Bronze Age heroes of Homer’s Iliad—Hector and Achilles—who show up at the battlefield on chariots.
Chariots are mentioned very frequently in the Bible. Next week is the Jewish Passover. The Pharaoh chased the children of Israel towards the Red Sea with an army of chariots, probably around 1,800 or 1,600 BC. So, chariots were the horses’ entry into warfare.
To follow up on that—by 1,000 BC, so after about 800 years of chariot warfare, people figured out that it was much more efficient, cheaper, and potentially more lethal to fight on the horse itself rather than from a cart—riding the horse and either slinging javelins or using a bow and arrow. Eventually, mounted archers—mounted cavalry—replaced chariots, starting around 1,000 BC in the Middle East and about 500 BC in China.
‘Raiders, Rulers, and Traders’ by David Chaffetz. 448 pp. W. W. Norton & Company
Jacobsen: Even in the relatively recent history of show jumping—which I’ve covered in Canada as part of my previous journalistic work—we see stark generational shifts in how the sport approaches safety. Riders like Ian Millar, Eric Lamaze, Gail Greenough, Beth Underhill, Michel Vaillancourt, and Jim Day came up in an era very different from that of today’s leaders such as Tiffany Foster and Erynn Ballard. Over time, the sport has introduced safety mandates: chinstraps, vests, breakaway cups on jumps, and obstacle courses built with fiberglass or PVC. These changes reflect a broader effort to make the sport safer and more regulated.
This signals a kind of domestication—not unlike the transition from chariot warfare to riding astride in saddles, whether soft or rigid. It feels like part of a long arc of human-equine evolution. In that context, I’m curious: Across this several-thousand-year trajectory of domestication and equestrian training, were there ever periods where knowledge was lost—moments when the transmission of skills or traditions faltered before later being revived?
Chaffetz: That’s an interesting question. The way of life of the people who live by horse breeding—the Turco-Mongolian population of Central Asia and Inner Asia—has been stable for over 3,000 years.
Since the emergence of riding horseback to fight, up until the beginning of the 20th century, their way of life has been extremely stable. Improvements in tack, riding technique, and horse evolution have only made horses bigger, stronger, and better.
Their horses improved naturally because they were not bred to have pure bloodlines. They were bred when a stallion was deemed a very good stallion, and everyone wanted to use that stallion to breed with their mares. They didn’t have a stud book. They didn’t have rules about who should be bred with whom.
So, I think they probably had the toughest, best, and most powerful horses for many years.
In the 20th century, totalitarian governments were politically opposed to horse breeders in all those countries.These governments suppressed the horse breeders’ way of life, resulting in a huge loss of knowledge about how to breed and train horses, which they’re currently trying to recover from.
For example, the Nomad Games in Central Asia are gaining in popularity. Here countries that have a tradition of these mounted games—like the famous buzkashi or kukpar, where riders pick a heavy animal carcass off the ground—I call it rugby on horseback—or polo, or racing, or mounted archery, compete for prizes. People come from all over the world to see and compete in them. They’re reconstructing the equine knowledge base of the Central Asians, who had it for 3,000 years and almost lost it completely in the 20th century.
I don’t know much about Western riding traditions. Still, my feeling is that there has been so much money in it for so many years—betting on horses in the Anglosphere: UK, Ireland, Canada, the U.S., Australia—that it would be very surprising to me if, in the past 300 or 400 years, we’ve lost any knowledge along the way.
But I would mention that in the West our horses are dangerously overbred and unhealthy, and somebody will have to do something about this—or we will be in big trouble with our horses.
Jacobsen: Can you explain the dual role that horses have historically played—as both currency and commodity—and what that tells us about their place in the broader economic and cultural systems of the societies that relied on them?
Chaffetz: Well, the advantage of horses as a trade item is that they feed themselves and walk themselves. If you’re trying to make money over a very large distance—let’s say you’re in the middle of Asia—there’s not much opportunity to make money, but you have a huge herd of horses. You can ride those horses into India; you can ride them to China; you can ride them to Moscow and sell them for big money. In our terms, let’s say currency—$500 to $1,000 per head. Even today, for a Central Asian, $1,000 is a lot of money. So, the horse is the ideal tradable commodity.
It’s also potentially a prestige commodity, depending on how good the horse is. There are always exceptional horses that fetch prices equivalent to what we would pay today for a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. Those horses were often, in fact, given as gifts to emperors of the different countries of Asia as a commercial sweetener to open the door for commercial relationships. We have many paintings or sculptures of these prestigious horses in Chinese, Indian, or Iranian art sent as gifts to rulers. That underscores the importance of the horse as a trading commodity.
(Kseniia Jin)
Jacobsen: In most civilizations—particularly in their early stages of development—humans tend to self-mythologize, often envisioning their gods in anthropomorphic terms. Similarly, we see the emergence of equine myths like Pegasus or the unicorn. How have horses been mythologized across art, literature, and ritual? And how does that equine symbolism shape, or become woven into, the self-narrative of empires throughout history?
Chaffetz: Let’s discuss the archaeological record. Starting around 2000 BC, we begin to find elaborate—multi-level graves—containing elite individuals: a man and a woman or several members of a family, together with other people, presumably sacrificed servants or retainers, and significantly sacrificed horses.
We also know from the rituals embedded in the sacred scriptures of the ancient Indians and Iranians that they held horse races in honor of the dead and then sacrificed the horses following the race.
I recall that in Homer’s Iliad, when Priam buries Hector, he orders horse races to be performed in honour of his son. So, the horse race can be seen as a symbol of the journey of the soul of the dead into the other world. The sacrificed horse performs the same role he performed for the departed in life.
This is very pervasive and persistent across Eurasia. Until the Tang Dynasty in China—so we’re talking 900 AD—we saw extensive grave gifts in terra-cotta horses—images of horses superseding horse sacrifices.
Horses have always been viewed as partly from another world, suitable for accompanying us on our journey into that world. That’s one of the most important symbolic uses of horses in our cultures.
There are many others: the horse can metaphorize the human soul. In both Plato’s dialogues and Buddhist scripture, the horse represents the soul—fleeing madly forward, not knowing where it’s going, in a panic. It’s up to the sentient soul—the superego, in Freudian terms—to control that frightened horse and make sure it goes in the right direction.
So, there’s also a psychological aspect to how we view horses.
Finally, because horses are very beautiful and associated with power and prestige, we have aestheticized them—their bodies, their speed, their colours. They are a major subject of the visual arts in Chinese sculpture, painting, and in Iranian and Mughal painting. And, of course, in the Anglo world again, there are all those beautiful paintings of racehorses. And we have Rosa Bonheur, the celebrated French painter of horses. Horses are almost universally admired and approved as aesthetic objects.
Those are the three main roles horses play in the symbolic world.
Jacobsen: At the dawn of the 20th century, entire industries revolved around the industrial-scale cleanup of horse manure in major cities—an unglamorous but central part of urban life. That world has vanished. Today, horses have become rare, even precious, commodities. As you pointed out, some elite horses are now valued at $500,000. I’ve learned from my conversations with experts that a single entry-level Olympic horse often starts at $500,000—or €500,000—and the average can soar to €5 million. And that’s just one. Riders frequently need seven or eight, as the horses tire easily and often specialize in different types of course design.
These animals are bred with extreme precision—for traits like “scopiness”—and their value has skyrocketed. Do you see a curious continuity between this elite modern equestrian culture and ancient traditions in which horses were reserved for rulers, royal burials, or ceremonial contests? In a way, are we witnessing a kind of exaggerated return to those aristocratic norms, where billionaires have reignited a high-stakes interest in horses, driving prices through the roof? Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, practical horse breeding and riding for everyday use—ranch work and rural life—has largely faded from the mainstream.
Chaffetz: Yes, there’s a bifurcation in the world of horses. But bifurcation has always existed. In the past, there were ordinary work horses and elite horses. In the past, ordinary horses could easily be raised in countries where horses could graze year-round outside—without stables or foddering— so the cost of keeping a horse was within everyone’s reach. This would be typical of Afghanistan as well as Texas today. But this phenomenon of was much more widespread in the past. As the world becomes more urbanized, and as we put more land under plow, the availability of land where horses can feed themselves is reduced.
You now have to spend serious money if you’re going to stable an animal, feed it, or have someone else look after it. Very few people will work as stable boys or stable girls, and there is a significant shortage of veterinarians. For all these reasons, the average person cannot keep a horse at any reasonable cost as they could have 50 or 70 years ago in rural British Columbia or Upstate New York. Today, they have to commit substantial money to raising that horse.
So that’s the fate of, let’s call it, the everyday horse.
On the high end, nothing has changed in a thousand years. Elite horses have always been pampered. They’ve always had grooms. They’ve always had special fodder. In my book, I describe the efforts that Chinese or Mughal emperors in India undertook to care for their horses. They were the Olympic competition horses, the Kentucky Derby horses of their time. They were priceless.
One of the Mughal emperors gave one of these horses to his brother-in-law, the Maharaja of Jaipur. The emperor wrote that the Maharaja was “so happy receiving the horse that it was as if I had given him a whole kingdom.” So, you can see that the $5 million horse existed 500 years ago. The billionaires today continue this time-honored tradition of maharajas and kings who had these incredible horses.
And again, we should keep in mind that just like the average professional football/soccer player commands the same money as Kulian Mbappé or Cristiano Ronaldo, the average horse is worth far less than the greatest horses. This kind of bifurcation is true in every sport.
Jacobsen: What thread runs through Mongolia, Persia, and India regarding how they have viewed horses over the millennia?
Chaffetz: These are countries where, traditionally, nobody with self-respect would ever walk. They rode everywhere. This is very evident in Persian paintings: you see scenes where the king is sitting in a garden, surrounded by his courtiers and enjoying himself. There are musicians, dancing girls, food, and wine. But always, you see a horse posted close to the king because the minute he’s done with his picnic or court session, he will walk two yards, leap up on the horse, and ride off.
They couldn’t imagine going anywhere on foot. When you rode into their palaces—in many of these buildings, for example, the Forbidden City in Beijing—horse ramps led into the inner pavilion because the emperor would have ridden in, left the horse at the very threshold of his residence, and dismounted only at that point.
So, it’s a completely horse-focused society.
And that, as I said, was one of those common elements that made me think those countries were connected via the horse.
I’d also like to point out that the old Russian state—before Peter the Great, before the modernization and Europeanization of Russia—looked and felt very much like Mongolia or Iran in the way people rode, raised horses, and dressed and in the importance of the horse trade for the Muscovite State at the time.
Jacobsen: What are you hoping people take away from Raiders, Rulers, and Traders?
Chaffetz: The horse is this phenomenon that had been so important for—as I say—3,000 years, since we started riding horses for warfare, until the beginning of the 20th century. The horse drove a way of life. It determined the destiny of empires that accounted for half of the world’s population at the time. It shaped a whole culture of horsemanship and riding.
Then, at the beginning of the 20th century—as you pointed out—suddenly, horses were no longer important except in the very limited forms of showing and racing. They lose their significance from an economic, political, and military perspective. It happened very quickly. The horse breeders disappeared from history.
I think what you take away is that a way of life can develop and be extremely persistent and robust for three millennia and then disappear in one man’s lifetime. This makes us think that, while our lifestyles appear to be stable and persistent, what will happen in our lifetime or the next generation when a major technological change comes along, and elements of our world that we took for granted become irrelevant. I want people to think about that sense of loss and change.
Jacobsen: David, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Chaffetz: Nice, my pleasure, Scott. It was good talking to you, too. Bye-bye.
Jeff Sebo is not interested in preserving the status quo. An associate professor at New York University, Sebo’s work cuts across environmental ethics, bioethics, animal ethics, and the rapidly evolving field of AI ethics. He serves as director of NYU’s Center for Environmental and Animal Protection and its Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy—two platforms from which he challenges one of modern philosophy’s most enduring assumptions: human exceptionalism.
Sebo argues for a moral framework that doesn’t stop at the species line. His scholarship explores what it means to be sentient, conscious, or capable of agency—and why those traits should inform our ethical obligations not just toward nonhuman animals, but toward artificial intelligences and future beings. In raising these questions, he exposes the deep-seated biases that shape moral reasoning.
In his latest book, The Moral Circle, Sebo invites readers to rethink the boundaries of moral concern, pressing toward a more inclusive ethic—one that reflects the complexities of a world increasingly shared with other minds, both biological and synthetic.
(NYU Arts & Science)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is a traditional notion of human exceptionalism. There is also a belief, probably from Descartes, that humans have souls while animals do not. Therefore, nonhuman animals can be treated however we see fit, for better or worse. What was your first challenge to this ethical precept of human exceptionalism?
Jeff Sebo: Human exceptionalism, as I define it in my book, is the assumption that humans always matter the most and should always take ethical priority. We might consider animal welfare or animal rights, but we still assume that humans come first.
When we developed this assumption of human exceptionalism, we also conveniently assumed that the vast majority—if not all—nonhuman animals lacked sentience, agency, and other morally significant capacities and relationships. According to this perspective, humans were the only beings who mattered.
However, we now understand that sentience, agency, and other morally significant capacities and relationships are widespread in the animal kingdom. Yet, despite this, we continue to hold on to the idea that humans always matter most and always take priority.
My book challenges that assumption. It seriously considers the possibility that a wide range of nonhuman animals have morally significant experiences, motivations, lives, and communities. It asks: What is our place in the moral universe if we share it with such a vast and diverse range of nonhuman beings?
Jacobsen: Your analysis is multivariate, as it should be, because this problem is complex. You consider factors such as sentience, agency, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, varying emotions, and the ability to make short- and long-term plans.
These are very subtle and important distinctions, especially when they are brought together as a complex. For those who have not yet read your book, how would you parse these capacities apart and bring them together for analysis?
Sebo: There are many different proposed bases for moral standing—in other words, various capacities or relationships that might be sufficient for an individual to merit consideration, respect, and compassion.
Sentience is the ability to consciously experience positive or negative states—such as pleasure, pain, happiness, or suffering.
Then there is consciousness, which is the ability to have experiences of any kind, even if they lack a positive or negative valence. For example, you can perceive colours or sounds without experiencing pleasure or pain.
Another important capacity is agency, which is the ability to set and pursue one’s own goals in a self-directed manner based on one’s own beliefs and desires.
Part of what makes this topic complex is that humans typically combine these capacities. We are sentient, conscious, and agentic, and all of these traits seem intertwined when we consider what makes humans morally significant and worthy of respect and compassion.
However, these capacities can be teased apart in nonhuman beings. Some nonhuman animals, like humans, may be sentient, conscious, and agentic. But other beings might be conscious without being sentient, meaning they have experiences without a positive or negative valence. Others might be agentic without being conscious, meaning they can set and pursue their own goals without having feelings associated with their actions.
In such cases, it matters which capacities we consider sufficient for moral significance.
You also mentioned other, more specific cognitive capacities, such as perception, attention, learning, memory, self-awareness, social awareness, language, reasoning, decision-making, metacognition (the ability to think about one’s own thoughts), and having a global workspace that coordinates cognitive activity.
These additional features are relevant in different ways. One reason is that they indicate whether an individual has sentience, consciousness, or agency. The more of these features an individual possesses, the more likely they are to have positive or negative experiences.
Another way these capacities are relevant is that they provide insight into an individual’s interests and vulnerabilities—assuming they have morally significant interests and vulnerabilities in the first place.
For example, if a being can engage in complex long-term planning and decision-making, they may be more interested in their own future and face higher stakes in decisions about their survival. These considerations suggest that when determining whether a nonhuman entity matters—and what they want, need, and are owed—we must examine the full range of behavioural and cognitive capacities they possess.
‘The Moral Circle’ by Jeff Sebo. 192 pp. W. W. Norton & Company
Jacobsen: We encounter a host of distinctions in bioethics, law, moral philosophy, and ethics—distinctions that are increasingly strained by the pace and complexity of modern technology. Yet, the true value of this technological revolution may not lie in the tools themselves but in how they compel us to revisit and reimagine long-held assumptions about human nature and selfhood.
A friend once remarked that when using his iPhone, the device’s task-switching feature mirrors the way his mind organically toggles between different cognitive modes—visualizing images, recalling sounds, replaying music, performing calculations, and so on. In your view, does living in a high-tech society sharpen our ability to recognize and interrogate these distinctions more effectively? Or do you think we’re still too quick to revert to a reflexive, tribal mindset—one that insists, in essence, “We have souls; they do not. We matter. Go, team human”?
Sebo: Possibly! Technology pushes us to refine our scientific and philosophical understanding of sentience, consciousness, and agency because we are now interacting with an even larger number and a wider variety of complex cognitive systems. This reality forces us to think more critically about how our brains compare to other animal brains—and now, digital, silicon-based minds. These challenges compel us to add more rigour to our theories of mind.
A similar transformation occurred in the study of animal minds. For a long time, theories of consciousness were created by and for humans, focusing exclusively on human cognition. This limited our imagination and constrained our understanding of consciousness beyond our own species.
However, as researchers began taking animal consciousness seriously, they encountered a vast array of minds structured differently from our own yet capable of much of the same high-level behaviour and cognition. This forced us to challenge prior assumptions about how specific brain structures were essential to particular types of behaviour and cognition.
We may soon experience a similar paradigm shift as we start thinking more critically about digital minds. We have long adhered to the idea that biological minds, with their exact materials, structures, and functions, are the only ones capable of high-level cognition. However, we are forced to rethink our assumptions as we begin to confront digital minds that can exhibit much of the same behavior and cognition but through radically different means—using silicon-based substrates and alternative structures.
Just as our understanding of sentience, consciousness, and agency evolved when we started studying nonhuman animal minds, we now face a similar challenge with digital minds. This shift compels us to reconsider what is necessary for complex cognition and moral significance. Thinking about these age-old topics in new ways improves our understanding of animal and digital minds. It also allows us to apply that knowledge back to human cognition. By studying these alternative cognitive systems, we may gain deeper insights into our minds, including what it truly means to be sentient, conscious, or agentic.
Jacobsen: What do you think are the modern notions that allow us to continue enacting old callousness toward nonhumans, just as we did in the past? Are there new concepts leading to the same outcomes?
Sebo: Yes, absolutely. Even industrialization plays a role in this. While we have developed new technologies and scientific frameworks, we still carry many of our old biases and forms of ignorance. Some of these biases are deeply ingrained in human nature. In contrast, others are reinforced by societal structures that remain largely unchanged from fifty or even a hundred years ago. We have a strong bias in favour of beings like and near us. When a being looks, acts, or communicates in human-like ways and when we perceive them as companions, we are far more likely to care about their well-being and give weight to their interests. Conversely, when a being looks, acts, or communicates differently, or when we classify them as objects, property, or commodities, we grant them far less moral consideration. The same holds true for beings physically distant from us or in different timescales—we prioritize those right in front of us over those far away in space or time.
This bias has shaped how we treat other animals, particularly favouring mammals and primates, who resemble us in body structure, facial features, cognition, and behaviour. We assign them moral worth if we classify them as companions—such as cats and dogs. However, we extend far less consideration to animals who differ greatly from us, such as invertebrates, aquatic species, or animals used for farming and research. These creatures are often reduced to objects or commodities, reinforcing a hierarchical moral structure that justifies their instrumentalization for human purposes.
We may see these old biases reemerging in new ways with AI systems. For instance, we already interact with human-like chatbots, which have a low probability of actual consciousness but generate highly realistic human-like text through pattern recognition and prediction. Because they mimic human communication and are marketed as digital assistants or companions, we may perceive them as having human-like minds and assign them moral weight accordingly. Meanwhile, other AI systems may be far more likely to be conscious due to their internal cognitive complexity. Yet, we may fail to recognize their moral significance simply because they do not resemble us.
Suppose an AI system lacks human-like speech, facial features, or emotional expressiveness and is designed primarily to perform rote tasks. In that case, we may treat it more like a tool than a potentially sentient entity. This mirrors how we treat invertebrates, farmed animals, or lab animals—beings who may have morally significant experiences but are excluded from ethical considerations due to human biases.
Different populations may have distinct features, and we may hold different biases toward them. With nonhuman animals, we exhibit speciesism, a form of discrimination based on species membership. With digital minds, we might develop substratism, a form of discrimination based on the material substrate of an entity’s mind. However, at the core, these biases stem from the same underlying tendency—favouring beings that are like us and near us. Whether dealing with digital minds or nonhuman animals, this bias will manifest similarly, shaping how we assign moral worth and ethical consideration.
Jacobsen: In the film Blade Runner 2049, there was a striking moment where a synthetic human destroyed a holographic AI assistant stored in a data stick. It was fascinating because you had one synthetic being eliminating another, treating it as disposable, much like crumpling up and discarding a bad note on a notepad. Are we at risk of accidentally engineering our own callousness into AI systems, particularly in how we design them to interact with other beings?
Sebo: Yes, we are definitely at risk of that, and this is where AI safety and AI welfare intersect. AI safety focuses on making AI systems safer for humans. At the same time, AI welfare considers how we can develop AI safely for AI systems themselves, assuming they develop morally significant interests, needs, and vulnerabilities.
One area where these concerns overlap is algorithmic bias. If AI systems train on human data, they absorb humanity’s best and worst aspects. They inherit our insights, but they also replicate and potentially amplify our biases—racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.
If we train AI systems—either directly or indirectly—to believe that differences in material composition justify unequal treatment, we risk embedding dangerous moral assumptions into their cognitive architecture. If AI learns that beings of different materials—such as other AI systems, humans, or animals—can be treated as expendable, this conditioning could have serious consequences. AI may develop hostility toward other AI systems with different architectures or even extend indifference or aggression toward humans and animals if they mirror the treatment they receive.
Jacobsen: When you referenced substratism earlier, did you adhere to substrate independence—the idea that consciousness and morally significant capacities can exist in different material forms, such as carbon-based biological brains and silicon-based artificial systems?
Sebo: If by substrate independence you mean the idea that consciousness and other morally significant capacities can arise in various material substrates, including both carbon-based biological systems and silicon-based digital systems, then yes, I am open to that possibility.
One of the central arguments in my book is that we will soon face the challenge of deciding how to treat highly advanced digital minds, even though we may lack definitive knowledge or consensus on two key questions: What exactly makes an entity matter for its own sake? Do digital minds possess the necessary attributes to qualify for moral consideration?
As technology advances, we will need to grapple with these questions in a way that avoids reinforcing our historical biases while ensuring that our ethical frameworks remain flexible enough to accommodate nonhuman and nonbiological forms of intelligence.
We will continue to face substantial and ongoing disagreement—both about ethical values about scientific facts concerning sentience, consciousness, and agency—as we make decisions about how to treat these emerging forms of intelligence. We will not reach certainty or consensus on whether substrate independence is correct or incorrect anytime soon. Because of this, we must develop a framework for decision-making that allows us to make sound ethical decisions despite the persistent uncertainty and disagreement.
When confronted with this epistemic uncertainty, we have a moral responsibility to err on the side of caution. That means granting at least some moral consideration to entities that have a realistic possibility of having subjective experiences. This is why we must extend some moral weight to AI and other digital minds in the near future.
Jacobsen: Earlier, you spoke about speciesism, and now we are transitioning to substratism. In your book, you provide two clear examples—one about Neanderthals and another about synthetic (android) roommates. When considering ethical frameworks beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how do Neanderthals and android thought experiments help us move beyond human-centered moral reasoning?
Sebo: Early in the book, I present a thought experiment where you and your roommates take a genetic test for fun, hoping to learn about your ancestry. To your surprise, you discover that one roommate is a Neanderthal, while the other is a Westworld-style android.
The Neanderthal scenario reminds us that species membership alone cannot determine moral considerability. Of course, species membership is morally relevant because it influences an individual’s interests, needs, vulnerabilities, and capacity for social bonds. However, if a Neanderthal lived alongside us, shared an apartment, and exhibited sentience, consciousness, and agency, their moral worth would be self-evident.
They would have personal projects, meaningful relationships, and experiences that matter to them—including relationships with us that hold mutual significance. Given all this, it is clear that they would still matter morally for their own sake, and we would have moral responsibilities toward them, regardless of their species classification.
The same reasoning extends to nonbiological entities, such as advanced AI systems or synthetic beings. If an android did exhibit sentience, consciousness, and agency, then substrate differences alone—whether carbon-based or silicon-based—should not be the sole determinant of moral status. This thought experiment challenges our deep-seated biases and pushes us to rethink moral considerability beyond traditional human-centred ethics.
So, if your roommate turned out to be a Neanderthal rather than a Homo sapiens, that difference might slightly modify the specific obligations you owe them, but it would not change the fundamental fact that you do owe them moral consideration. Their species membership would not negate their sentience, consciousness, or agency, nor would it diminish your ethical responsibilities toward them.
With the Westworld-style robot, however, the situation becomes more complex. Once you learn that your roommate is made of silicon-based chips, even if they demonstrate the same behaviours and exhibit cognitive capacities comparable to yours, you might question whether they truly possess sentience, consciousness, or agency. You might be uncertain whether their expressions of emotion, care, and concern are genuine or merely sophisticated simulations.
Imagine sitting at the dinner table with your Neanderthal and robot roommates. You discuss your day, share your successes and failures, and empathize with one another. With the Neanderthal roommate, you might feel fully confident in your empathy, recognizing their capacity for real experiences and emotions. With the robot roommate, however, you might hesitate, wondering whether your instinct to empathize is truly appropriate.
As I mentioned earlier, regarding your Neanderthal roommate, you should be confident that they matter and that you have ethical responsibilities toward them. You should continue showing up for them in a morally appropriate way. Your uncertainty is understandable with your robot roommate, but that uncertainty does not justify treating them as a mere object. Uncertainty should never lead us to round down to zero and assume they do not matter.
Instead, when in doubt, we should err on caution. That means granting at least some degree of moral consideration, showing respect and compassion, and making ethical decisions that acknowledge the possibility of their sentience or agency.
Jacobsen: AI is evolving at an unprecedented pace. There is massive capital investment, intense competition, and highly driven, ambitious talent pouring their lives into developing increasingly advanced AI systems. Given this rapid acceleration, how do ethical considerations around synthetic minds and artificial intelligence change when our moral frameworks remain largely outdated?
We are struggling to engage in mainstream ethical discussions about AI and digital minds. Yet, many societies are still debating fundamental scientific concepts—from evolution to the Big Bang theory. In many ways, our moral discourse is still stuck in first-century or Bronze Age perspectives, while AI pushes us into an era that demands new ethical paradigms. This gap between technological and ethical progress seems like a major barrier to responsible AI development. What are your thoughts on this disparity?
Sebo: The way you frame the issue is exactly right. Many moral intuitions and judgments evolved in response to the social environments of 10,000 years ago when humans lived in small communities and faced different types of conflicts and pressures. These moral frameworks were not designed for the complexities of the modern age, and they are especially ill-suited for addressing fast-moving technologies like artificial intelligence.
As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where technological development is accelerating, but our ethical frameworks are lagging behind. This creates a dangerous gap: We are engineering systems that will increasingly shape the world, yet we lack consensus on how to navigate this transformation ethically. AI ethics needs to catch up to AI development—otherwise, we risk deploying powerful technologies without the moral safeguards necessary to prevent harm.
An important observation is that technological progress far outpaces social, legal, and political progress. When we consider where AI could advance in the next five to ten years, along with the strong incentives that companies and governments have to race toward developing more advanced and sophisticated AI systems, it becomes clear that we must prepare for these possibilities—even if we cannot predict them with certainty.
We do not yet know whether we will reach Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in the next two, four, six, eight, or ten years. Nor do we know if AI will develop sentience, consciousness, or agency within that timeframe. However, we must allow for the possibility because so much remains unknown about the nature of these capacities and the trajectory of AI development.
Many would have been skeptical if you had asked AI experts a decade ago whether we would have AI systems capable of writing realistic essays or passing standardized tests across various professional and academic fields by 2025. Yet, those systems now exist. Similarly, you had asked when AI could match or surpass human-level performance across a wide range of cognitive tasks. At present, some experts doubt that this will happen by 2035. But others find it plausible, and either way, the pace of technological development could again surprise us.
This is because the same computational and architectural features associated with intelligence are often linked—in complex and overlapping ways—to sentience, consciousness, and agency. While intelligence and sentience are not identical, they share many of the same fundamental properties. As a result, in our pursuit of AGI by 2030 or 2035, we may accidentally create artificial sentience, consciousness, or agency without realizing it. In other words, we may be racing directly toward that reality without recognizing it as our destination.
The key takeaway for companies, governments, policymakers, and decision-makers is that we cannot afford to confront this problem only once it arrives. We must begin preparing for it now. Even if today’s language models are not usable candidates for sentience, AI companies must still acknowledge that AI welfare is a credible and legitimate issue that deserves serious ethical consideration.
Companies should start assessing their AI systems for welfare-relevant features, drawing from the same frameworks we use in animal welfare assessments. They should also develop policies and procedures for treating AI systems with appropriate moral concern, again using existing AI safety and animal welfare ethics models.
If companies fail to prepare, they will find themselves caught off guard, relying on public relations teams to dictate their response strategies rather than making these critical ethical decisions proactively and responsibly. That is not how these decisions should be made.
Jacobsen: Two things stood out from the text. One is the wider application of universalism or universal moral consideration in fundamental ethics. The other is a probabilistic approach to ethics rather than appealing to transcendent absolutes.
So, in your ethics framing, do you believe there are any absolutes? Or should probability theory and universalism serve as the two benchmarks for a temporary ethical framework concerning moral concerns within the moral circle?
Sebo: Yes. That’s a good question, and I’ve been thinking a lot about it.
I do make some assumptions throughout the book—assumptions that I take to be plausible and widely accepted across a range of ethical traditions, even those that disagree on other matters.
For example, the idea that we should reduce and repair harm caused to vulnerable beings—particularly those with sentience, consciousness, and agency—is an implication of many ethical theories and traditions. Since this principle is widely accepted, we can be confident that it should be a core component of any ethical system. Similarly, many ethical frameworks imply that we should consider and mitigate risks in a reasonable and proportionate way.
I look for opportunities where different traditions converge since those points of agreement reinforce ethical confidence. Even if we cannot be certain of a claim’s absolute truth, we can still have high confidence in its validity based on broad moral consensus.
With that in mind, I believe we should confidently hold that sentient, conscious, and agentic beings matter and that their interests deserve moral consideration, respect, and compassion. We should reduce and repair the harms we cause them where possible and reasonably assess and mitigate the risks we impose on them.
These principles are robust across multiple ethical frameworks, so they deserve serious moral weight, even if they fall slightly short of total certainty.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was nice to meet you. Thank you again for sharing your expertise.
Sebo: Thank you for talking with me. If there’s anything else I can do to help or if you have any follow-up questions, feel free to let me know.
Jason Weixelbaum is a historian and filmmaker whose work explores the moral entanglements of American corporations with authoritarian regimes, especially Nazi Germany.
After witnessing ethical lapses in the mortgage industry during the 2000s, he pursued a Ph.D. examining U.S. companies like Ford, IBM, and GM under Nazism. He founded Elusive Films in 2020 and created A Nazi on Wall Street, a dramatized series about a Jewish FBI agent targeting Nazi influence in 1940s New York.
Weixelbaum emphasizes how historical patterns of authoritarianism echo today through populist politics, corporate complicity, and the erosion of ethical accountability under capitalism in crisis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today and contributing to this broader project—a forthcoming book compiling conversations with diverse experts on antisemitism.
Jason Weixelbaum: I appreciate it. I’m glad someone is listening. Sometimes, I feel like I’ve been shouting into the void for years.
Jacobsen: Over the years, I’ve learned that one of our family members was recognized for sheltering a Jewish couple during the Second World War. I have some Dutch heritage, which explains my blond hair and Northern European features.
What initially drew you to the intersection of American corporate history and Nazi Germany?
Weixelbaum: That’s a good story. Once upon a time, I dropped out of art school. To support my painting and rock music lifestyle, I played in bands in my early twenties, and I took a job where they were hiring: the mortgage business.
In the early 2000s, refinancing was booming, and I ended up in mortgage-backed securities. I had no idea at the time that I was part of a rapidly growing economic bubble that would eventually collapse in 2008.
Eventually, I worked in a bank’s mortgage securities department. I was not a trader and certainly was not making large sums of money. I earned ten dollars an hour to help process large securities transactions—the kind that later became infamous in films like The Big Short.
On my first day at this particular financial institution—located in a large, mostly empty mall converted into office cubicles—I was instructed to process a $200 million “pool” of mortgages. In industry terms, a “pool” is a bundle of home loans sold as a mortgage-backed security. My job was to stamp mortgage notes sold to another institution—which no longer exists because it collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis—and to enter borrower data into a system.
I meticulously checked them all, then hit “send,” and a big red error box popped up on the screen. It was my first day, and I was trying not to freak out. I went back and double-checked every single Social Security number, dollar amount, income, loan amount—everything. Then I hit “send” again.
There is a big red error screen.
Now, my boss sees the distressed look on my face. She approaches my cubicle, sits at my terminal, and asks, “What’s wrong?”
“I—I don’t know. It won’t send.”
So, she’s looking through the different pieces of data. I notice she’s starting to change numbers—changing incomes here and there. Then she says, “Try it now.”
She gets up. I sit back down at my terminal and hit “Send.”
A big green bar comes up: Sent successfully.
And then—nonchalantly—she says, “Next time, do that with all of them,” and walks away.
I spent three more years in that department, trading approximately $2.5 billion of mortgage securities. Of course, I was part of a larger department, but I had that level of responsibility.
I was in my early twenties. This was my intellectual awakening. I thought, “If I’m going to be in this place, I might as well learn about finance, banking, and mortgages.” What’s going on here?
And that’s when it started to dawn on me that this was going to be a huge problem for the world. This was going to cause an economic catastrophe. My morale sank more and more the longer I stayed.
One day—this was still two or three years before the crash—I was sitting at a bus stop after work, feeling particularly low about what I had done all day. They weren’t even paying me enough to afford a car. It was poetic, in a way—while I was helping to crash the world economy.
Right next to the bus stop, there was a bookstore. In the window, I saw a book about a company operating in Nazi Germany. Side note: Around the early 2000s, several books were published on the topic, partly because several large-scale Holocaust restitution lawsuits had recently concluded—some of which involved major companies. That brought renewed attention to corporate complicity in the Holocaust.
So I walked in, saw that book, and felt an immediate connection. These businesses might have had good reputations on the surface but were doing things with tremendously grave outcomes.
It took a little while, but I can pinpoint that moment when I decided to quit that job, return to school, and begin again—starting my undergraduate degree as a historian, studying this topic. I was pretty single-minded. I wanted to know more—what this was all about. I fell down the rabbit hole. An undergraduate degree turned into a master’s and a doctorate.
Jacobsen: Looking back at your time in the mortgage securities industry during the early 2000s and the decision to investigate corporate ethics during the 1930s—is there some truth to that Mark Twain quote “history doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes”?
Weixelbaum: Oh, I’m glad you brought that up. As the founder and executive producer of Elusive Films, we have a tagline: “Every time history repeats, the price goes up.”
Yeah, that’s pretty accurate.
It does rhyme. I am seeing some very similar behaviour today in the American business community and their reaction to—what I call—the regime. It is enough to say that. The range of different approaches these businessmen take is fascinating.
When I started studying this, my surface-level understanding was very populist—torches and pitchforks. “Let’s get the bad corporate guys—they’re all evil,” that sort of thing. But if you’re doing history right, you begin to develop a respect for subtleties and nuance. Different business people have different motivations and approaches.
Some were true believers in the fascist cause—Henry Ford, for example. Others were far more amoral—Alfred Sloan of General Motors comes to mind. They just wanted to win the corporate race. Then, others knew they were doing something wrong but tried to cover it publicly as if they were doing the right thing.
I am thinking about Thomas Watson of IBM. He very publicly returned his Nazi medal and wrote an op-ed in The New York Times denouncing Nazism. But at the same time—simultaneously—he was fighting tooth and nail to retain control over IBM’s German subsidiaries. So there’s a range of approaches.
While we do not need to get into the weeds here, the field of corporate social responsibility also outlines different models for how business leaders respond. Some want to actively erase or forget their ties to authoritarian regimes, while others are content with apathy. It depends on the context.
(Elusive Films)
Jacobsen: Elusive Films is relatively new. It was founded in 2020, marking your transition from academia to filmmaking. With A Nazi on Wall Street, which is based on the true story of a Nazi spy operating in 1940s New York and the Jewish FBI agent determined to stop him—how did you uncover this narrative? This sounds like Mark Wahlberg going after Brad Pitt.
Weixelbaum: [Laughing] Oh gosh—yes, get this script to them!
We’ve spent the last several years developing an incredible pitch. It’s a project that’s being taken seriously by people in the entertainment industry. But as with everything, it is all about who you know. We’re told we have a great pitch—but we need to get it in front of some big movers and shakers. That’s one of the main reasons I’m talking to you—trying to get the word out.
This company—and this project—was born out of grief, Scott.
I was trying to find my way with a Ph.D. in history and business ethics. As you might imagine, that is not the most profitable path. I was doing some compliance work. Then, in December 2019, my father—who had spent his entire life in the entertainment industry, a TV actor in soap operas and films, a wonderful, wonderful man, the center of my world—got a mysterious respiratory virus.
Nobody knew what COVID-19 was yet. Maybe if you were paying close attention to the news here in the States, you would have an idea. But it took him very quickly. I was standing in the doorway of my row house in Baltimore after leaving work early on New Year’s Eve when I got the call from the ICU. As the eldest child, I had to decide to let him go—to turn off the respirator.
And, to put it mildly, I was destroyed. Destroyed. Then, only a month later, I was laid off. And a month after that, the entire world shut down. So there I was—devastated, unemployed, sitting on my couch with a completed Ph.D.—thinking, “What the hell am I going to do?”
And I wanted to find some way to honour my father’s legacy in television. He had been an actor for fifty years.
He also produced and directed for the stage and on screen. So I brought together a group of my creative friends—producers, writers, composers, designers—and asked them, “What if we tried to do this? What if we tried to make a TV show?” This is to answer your question, though I know it is a roundabout way of getting there.
I came across this incredible story of a Jewish FBI agent chasing a Nazi spy around New York City. It was not quite dissertation material, so I could not use much of it in my doctoral work. But it captured my imagination for a long time. Even the Nazi spy himself—who was connected to many of the companies I studied—kept popping up. I did not get to write much about him individually because I was focused on corporate case studies.
Still, this story had been kicking around in my head for quite some time. And as a vehicle to bring people into a first-person view of history, I don’t want to do a documentary. Everyone assumes, “Oh, I can’t wait to see your documentary.” But
I’m not doing a documentary.
I want to do a dramatization—on purpose—because it can reach the broadest possible audience and allow them to connect to the story through a human lens.
This FBI agent—whose story I can get into more deeply—was essentially trying, almost single-handedly, to stop the infiltration of Nazism into American business.
Jacobsen: What is the mindset of someone who is fully indoctrinated—functioning as a political vanguard for an ideology like Nazism? Someone virulent enough that even in another country, in a cosmopolitan city, they still carry and act on this ideological construct of mind.
Weixelbaum: This is where history meets the present.
Many others, people much more accomplished than I am, have written on this topic. But I do have a specific take: populism—grievance politics.
Now, I know there’s an ongoing debate about what populism is, but this is my definition. And because I have a doctorate, I get to make up my definitions of political terms—so you’ll have to bear with me. Populism—the pop politics of grievance—is always present. It’s like background radiation. It’s anthrax in the soil.
Populism is always present, especially in liberal societies where surface-level stability exists. It flourishes in those environments precisely because it does not live in a world of facts. It lives in a world of emotion—of outrage.
It jumps from one target to another. Rhetoric is irrelevant and can be shifted at will. The cause is irrelevant—it can be swapped out. Many people have trouble distinguishing left-wing and right-wing populism from actual liberalism or progressivism. The populist rhetoric is always the same: the people versus the elite. And the “elite” is changeable. It could be bankers. It could be academics. It could be the wealthy. It could be media figures. You name it.
Unfortunately, over a long enough timeline, in societies where populism thrives, Jewish people are often cast as the elite—those who must be stopped or destroyed. Populists always need new enemies. That is the actual mechanism. Any cause becomes a vehicle for continuing that pattern of scapegoating and persecution.
In my view, across the arc of history, populism has become very attractive when people feel particularly anxious or afraid, especially in times of great social or economic transformation.
Populism was prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s, and it is still prevalent today. It gives people a simple explanation for their fear: “I feel anxious, so I’ll go find the bad guys.”
The big bad guy is over there. I can dominate them, feel a little better about myself, and distract myself from my own fear and anxiety. The problem is that this kind of movement—this populist impulse—is extremely powerful for demagogues. And it is not limited to the disenfranchised. It is attractive to people who already hold wealth and power. They, too, are afraid. The more you have, the more afraid you may be of losing it.
Sorry—again, it’s a bit of a roundabout way to answer your question. However, populist movements were happening all over the place in the 1930s. Henry Ford is a great example. See if this sounds familiar: We have a wealthy person who did well in an industry but did not appear well-educated. He lacks critical thinking instincts and is surrounded by conspiracy theorists. They get their hands on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—an antisemitic hoax text originating in Russia.
And it changes his worldview. He becomes convinced there is a global Jewish conspiracy aiming to control the world.
And unfortunately, because Ford had so much money and influence, he could put these conspiracy theories into action. He began publishing the Protocols in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. He learned of Adolf Hitler and began sending money to the Nazi Party—although that topic is still under scrutiny by historians. He had The International Jew, his antisemitic publication, translated and distributed widely. So, no—wealth does not insulate you from ignorance. Critical thinking does not come with a big bank account.
That is where we see the toxic mix: populist sentiment, conspiracy theory, and immense wealth and influence. This was very much alive among segments of the American business community in the interwar period. And we could talk about other figures—businessmen who believed the world should be carved into spheres of influence. It sounds familiar again. These are not good dynamics.
Of course, eventually, the pattern emerges clearly: populists always destroy what they claim to protect. It is only a matter of time. Populism ultimately consumes itself. It does not build. It only tears down.
Jacobsen: Your father was an actor in film and television for fifty years. Did he—or his legacy—help influence your career path?
Weixelbaum: Yes—this is a passion project. It started because I needed something to do with my grief. I wanted to honour his legacy in some way. I do not think his work in soap operas and beach movies directly inspired the content I am working on now. But as a person—absolutely—he influenced me profoundly.
It was a great honour to have a father who would call me and say, especially after he retired, “I’ve been reading the news. Tell me, historian son, what the hell is going on?” He would call me regularly. He was engaged. He was curious. And that intellectual curiosity, that desire to understand the world—was a big part of who he was and what I carry forward.
We used to have these great, detailed conversations about why Reconstruction failed and how that failure continues to shape American politics today. I’d also talk to him about populist movements or similar topics. For me, continuing this work is a way of still having those conversations with him.
Jacobsen: Right-wing, far-right ideologies and political violence in the United States have been on the rise. The most active domestic terrorist groups in recent years have been white nationalists—often associated with Christian religious identity and tied to ethnic supremacist views. Statistically speaking, one could argue that the largest ethnic group and the dominant religion—white and Christian—are the most likely sources of this kind of terrorism. So, if you were to throw a dart randomly at a Venn diagram of potential culprits for right-wing terrorism, you’d likely land in that intersection. But of course, there are more nuanced takes to consider. What are some of those more nuanced perspectives?
Weixelbaum: I typically seek out the work of other experts in this field. There are many outstanding scholars—both living and deceased—whose research has deeply influenced my thinking. I would not claim to be more of an expert than they are, but I can speak to the patterns I see.
As I said earlier, this links directly to the anxiety people feel about their place in society—and how that fuels populist movements. We’re talking about right-wing populism here, and its most extreme version is fascism. Unsurprisingly, people join these movements when they feel their social status is threatened. Many white Christian nationalists in the U.S. have long believed themselves to be the default holders of power. But in a multiethnic democracy—especially one moving toward a “majority-minority” population—they see that dominance slipping. That anxiety becomes fuel.
There’s a direct connection between that fear and the rise of extremist movements. And I’m just one of many scholars who have made that observation. These conversations float through a lot of morally gray territory and deserve careful, continuous engagement.
Jacobsen: In your contribution to public discourse, how do you view the intersection of corporate ethics, historical accountability, and the prevention of authoritarianism? To what extent are ethical demands on corporations reasonable—and when might they become unfeasible?
Weixelbaum: Great question. It touches the core of my professional work throughout this project. I also work in ethics in a professional capacity. What’s hard to watch today is that we’re seeing the same patterns repeat.
You have businessmen who tell themselves comforting stories: “It will be fine. He’s our dictator. He’s a businessman. He’ll help us.” But it is all nonsense. As things progress, it rarely ends well when businesspeople engage with authoritarian movements. Populism is not rational. It’s not predictable. That is not a good environment for a long-term business strategy.
So yes, corporate ethics are vital. One of the biggest myths in my field is that American companies made massive profits in Nazi Germany. People often ask me, “How much money did they make?” The answer? Most of them lost money. Think about it: you’re an American executive and return to your factory in Germany in 1945. The factory is rubble. Your bank account is full of valueless Reichsmark from a defeated regime. And if the public finds out what you did, your company’s reputation is in shambles. There’s no profit in that.
Sure, you can argue that some companies gained market share after the war by eliminating competition, and some were well-positioned for the postwar boom. That is true in some cases. But we are seeing echoes of the same delusions today. Corporate leaders say things like, “The tariffs will be fine, or this will pass,” and it is clearly not fine.
At the time of this interview, the market reaction has been terrible—this is not a moment of validation for those who supported authoritarian figures and their enablers. So yes, corporate ethics matters. And some companies are trying—they value transparency, emphasize people over profits, or at least try to go beyond lip service.
However, where the scholarship in corporate ethics intersects with history is in practice. Today, companies can choose to be certified as ethical or transparent. Some have learned from history. But many—frankly, most—have not—not even close.
Jacobsen: Would you say that what we’re witnessing today is a resurgence of fascism in the truest sense? Or is it more appropriate to view fascism as a phenomenon bound to a specific historical moment, making today’s developments better characterized as a broader rise in authoritarianism rather than fascism itself?
Wexelbaum: [Laughing] If it doesn’t come out of Germany, it’s merely sparkling authoritarianism, right? I mean—sorry to keep pointing to this vague body of scholarship—but there is so much debate over what exactly constitutes fascism.
I’m looking at a section of my library next to my desk—bookshelves full of works, each offering a slightly different definition: “My exact definition is fascism.” It gets academic fast. That said, I generally think that, yes—right-wing authoritarianism took to its logical conclusion. We can call that fascism. We can use the F word and not feel too weird about it.
One of the really important projects in political discourse today is to be intentional about the words we use. I think—maybe this is partly the influence of social media—but people throw around terms like liberalism, leftism, populism, fascism, and progressivism constantly and rarely stop to reflect on what they mean. I do not see much discussion that’s useful or grounded.
And it’s okay to debate those terms. Scholars do it all the time. We should not take them for granted. So, yes, my broad understanding is that right-wing populism, taken to its extreme, leads to fascism. That means a demagogue becomes a dictator, and the movement itself runs on emotional cycles—finding new enemies to destroy repeatedly.
Where it gets more contentious—and especially relevant to our conversation—is in the relationship between capitalism and fascism, between business and fascist regimes.
As you might imagine, many people want to use the kind of historical work I do to support their political positions. I am not always thrilled about that. Some want to use the story of American companies operating in Nazi Germany as evidence that America has always been morally bankrupt. Well—maybe. But that’s not the whole story.
There were plenty of Americans, like the main character in A Nazi on Wall Street, who were actively trying to stop those alliances who were fighting fascism.
On the other hand, some want to argue that the Nazis were just puppets of industrialists—that capitalists were secretly pulling the strings behind Hitler. That is also not quite right. Hitler and the Nazi movement were already robust and ideologically driven before they came to power.
And once they did take over the German state, business leaders—especially German ones—had limited choices. It was not a matter of cozy alignment. It was compliance under threat. Once the Nazis consolidated power, business people were expected to cooperate—or face the consequences. If you disobeyed, someone would come to your house.
So, even in those contexts, there is still a range of behaviors. Some people were true believers, and it was profitable for them. Others did what they had to do because, frankly, they did not have a choice.
What’s so interesting about Americans who did business with the Nazis is that they were never under threat from the Gestapo. If they had chosen to walk away, no one would have shown up at their home in the U.S. There was a lot more room for negotiation, for exerting agency. And that power dynamic—between American business leaders and the Nazi regime—is something I find endlessly fascinating.
Readers might find this particularly interesting if you do not mind indulging me for a quick example. General Motors, at a certain point, wanted to make it appear as though they were not profoundly entangled with the Nazis. At the same time, the Nazi state was uneasy about relying so heavily on an American company—one that was, by far, the largest automaker in Germany at the time. People often talk about boycotting Volkswagen, but if you wanted to disrupt Nazi military production, you would have targeted General Motors. The scholarship on this is deep, and I could go on for hours.
Anyway, the Nazi regime and GM both knew the situation was delicate. So General Motors said, “We’ll stay, but we want our guy—our hand-picked Nazi—to run our German subsidiary.” After some negotiation and trial and error, they found a man who fit the bill. There was a revolving door of executives until they landed on someone who could maintain that balance. It was all very calculated.
That is just one example of how nuanced the relationship between capital and fascism could be. It was not just blind support or total victimization—it was messy, strategic, and often self-serving. And, of course, as the war progressed and things deteriorated, the American companies lost money. Their factories were bombed. Their assets were frozen. Their reputations suffered.
And gosh—does that sound familiar? It’s the same pattern: People think they will benefit in the short term from backing authoritarian actors, but in the long term, it almost always goes badly.
Jacobsen: How much are current American events paralleling the 1930s and 1940s historical occurrences? In other words, how much are people reading the situation correctly, and how much are they buying into left, centrist, or right-wing hyperbole?
Wexelbaum: Yes, what’s endlessly fascinating—and also maddening—about the history of Nazi Germany is that it has become a kind of Rorschach test. People project their anxieties and politics onto it. And if you invoke it too often or carelessly, it can be stripped of all real meaning.
The America of 2025 is not Nazi Germany for many reasons. First, it’s simply a much bigger country. Creating a totalitarian state in Germany in the 1930s was a very different enterprise from trying to do so in a nation of 350 million people.
That structural difference is, I hope, a saving grace for Americans who are worried about the direction of their country.
Also, today’s authoritarian-leaning movements in the U.S. are far less organized than the Nazis were. The Nazis had paramilitary wings, a centralized ideology, and a deeply developed propaganda system well before taking power. What we see now in the U.S. is much more chaotic—more fragmented.
That said, the rhetoric, the targeting of vulnerable groups, and the populist grievances rhyme with history, and we must pay attention.
This is an important story, and we can close with this.
For a few months during a long stretch of dissertation research, I became obsessed with reading the documents from the American Embassy in Nazi Germany, particularly in 1938. Specifically, I focused on the records from the Commercial Attaché’s Office. This office, housed within the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, studied economic trends and monitored the attitudes of American businesses operating in Germany and German businesspeople.
I highlight 1938 because it was a moment of intense global fear. Those who study this period know that the world had just experienced the Great Depression—a traumatic economic collapse that affected every industrialized nation. Both the United States and Germany had begun to recover in different ways. They found strategies to stimulate their economies; by the mid-to-late 1930s, some growth had returned.
But in 1938, another recession loomed—the first major signal of economic trouble since the recovery began. And that scared the Nazis to death. In those embassy records, I was surprised by just how much anxiety I saw—especially from people running a totalitarian state. These were not democratic leaders who feared losing an election. The Nazis had outlawed all other political parties by that point. But still, in 1937 and 1938, they were worried.
Why? Because even in a one-party dictatorship, you have to manage public perception. Even among supporters of the regime and the politically disengaged, public morale matters. Populist and authoritarian regimes require a foundation of stability to function. When the economy falters, the emotional rhetoric of grievance becomes hollow. You cannot feed people with propaganda. If they are well-fed, you can sell them all the grievance you want—but when hunger sets in, outrage loses its power.
Stability is the oxygen for authoritarian and populist regimes. But here’s the paradox: those regimes almost always destroy the very platform they stand on.
And the Nazis did exactly that. They eventually obliterated their foundation by launching a global war. So, bringing this back to the United States is a real and pressing concern. Authoritarianism cannot thrive without economic and social stability. I think the Nazi regime, for all its evil, understood that far better than the current American regime does.
You cannot build a durable authoritarian state on chaos. Even the Nazis—who were far more disciplined and ideologically cohesive—envisioned a “Thousand-Year Reich” and only made it twelve years. Not exactly a strong track record. What will be the track record of this current regime in America? Well… time will tell.
Jacobsen: Jay, thank you for your time today.
Wexelbaum: Sounds great. It’s good to meet you, Scott.
Thomas Pogge, a Harvard-trained philosopher now the Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale, has spent decades probing the ethical fault lines of global inequality. A member of the Norwegian Academy of Science, Pogge is a co-founder of Academics Stand Against Poverty and Incentives for Global Health, initiatives designed to advance access to essential medicines through mechanisms like the Health Impact Fund.
His body of work—including World Poverty and Human Rights, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, and Designing in Ethics—wrestles with some of the most urgent moral questions of our time: How can we structure a global order that is fairer, more equitable, and truly responsive to human suffering? Through Yale’s Global Justice Program, which he currently directs, Pogge fosters interdisciplinary collaborations to build more just economic, political, and social systems.
Central to his critique is the global patent regime, which he argues deepens inequality by restricting access to lifesaving innovations, particularly as institutionalized by the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement. In response, Pogge has championed “impact rewards”—proposals like the Health and Ecological Impact Funds that would incentivize pharmaceutical and environmental breakthroughs based on real-world benefit rather than market exclusivity. These alternatives, he contends, could reduce costs, improve health outcomes, and strengthen local capacities in low- and middle-income countries.
With global health again under intense scrutiny—highlighted by Germany’s Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and the G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness—Pogge believes the world stands at a moral crossroads. Reversing decline, he argues, demands more than good intentions; it requires bold, systemic reforms rooted in human rights and the common good.
(Wikimedia)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the big picture when understanding global structural reform relating to innovation, justice, and poverty?
Thomas Pogge: The way development and diffusion of innovations is socially organized has a profound distributive impact. Relying on monopoly rents as incentives, the present regime (globalized by the WTO’s 1995 TRIPS Agreement) aggravates human and financial capital inequalities by reserving innovation to well-funded corporations and requiring everyone else to pay road tolls or do without. Doing without can mean death, as it does for millions who perish because they cannot afford lifesaving pharmaceuticals, which their originators can and do sell at thousands of times the average cost of production. After all, no one else is permitted to make or sell them. This regime is profoundly unjust, provided an alternative would avoid such harms.
For innovations with clear, measurable social benefits or whose marginal cost of uptake is very low relative to the fixed cost of development, it would be far better to use publicly funded impact rewards based on the social benefit achieved with the innovation. Affluent users would still pay for most of the fixed cost of development, but now through the tax system, not via monopoly markups. As a result, innovative products would be far more affordable during their patent period, priced near the average cost of production.
Jacobsen: What are the key arguments in Freedom, Poverty, and Impact Rewards regarding global inequality and ethical responsibilities?
Pogge: Recognizing that overturning the TRIPS Agreement is unrealistic, the essay suggests offering originators the option to exchange their monopoly privileges for impact rewards. This could be done by creating sector-specific impact funds that make annual disbursements of pre-announced size, each divided among registered innovations according to the benefit achieved. Pharmaceutical innovations would be rewarded according to their health impact, for example, green-technology innovations according to pollution averted, educational innovations according to their impact on skills and employment, and agricultural innovations according to their impact on harvest yield and reduced consumption of water, pesticides, or fertilizer. Each fund would have its own uniform metric of achievement and would reward only those innovations whose monopoly privileges had been waived for a fixed number of years.
In addition to discussing technical details, the paper also complements the moral arguments with ones that highlight the enormous efficiency gains such funds would entail by reducing expenses for multiple staggered patenting in many jurisdictions with associated gaming efforts (such as evergreening), costs of preventing monopoly infringements, costs of mutually offsetting competitive promotion efforts, economic deadweight losses, and costs due to corrupt marketing practices and counterfeiting — all of which are driven up by the exorbitant profit margins engendered by the patent regime. These efficiency gains ensure that even though introducing impact funds would constitute a huge advance for poor people, it would not produce corresponding losses for the rich. This fact makes impact funds an especially attractive (politically more realistic) reform target.
(Ajin Ajeesh)
Jacobsen: How should we address the ecological crisis?
Pogge: We must reduce harmful pollution fast. Realistically and morally, this cannot be achieved by drastically reducing the human population or excluding people from modern life’s conveniences (cars, washing machines, and all the rest). We need green technologies that serve the needs and interests of (ideally) all human beings without degrading our environment. Such technologies must be developed and improved, and they must also be widely and effectively deployed and used.
There are three ways of accelerating such a transition: through constraints, penalties, or rewards. Constraints (legal prohibitions) and penalties (“carbon price”) forbid or discourage certain polluting activities and thereby foster the development and use of greener substitutes. Rewards incentivize the development and use of greener products through premiums based on the environmental harms they avert. All three approaches have a role to play; my work has focused on the neglected third approach.
The crisis persists because we make far too little use of all three approaches. And what’s much worse, we are paying huge rewards for using fossil fuels. Such subsidies fall under two headings. States provide explicit subsidies when they absorb some of the costs of fossil fuel extraction and delivery or lower the sales price of fossil fuels through supplementary subventions. States provide indirect or implicit subsidies when they shield producers and consumers of fossil fuels from responsibility for the damage they cause, such as excess medical bills and the cost of environmental clean-ups and additional (not so) “natural” disasters: floods, fires, droughts, mudslides, heat waves, rising sea levels, failed crops, spreading tropical disease vectors, and so on. Under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund, researchers have produced several careful studies of these subsidies, estimating them to amount to a staggering $7 trillion per annum globally or about 7% of the gross world product.
Fossil fuel subsidies are often excused with social reasons: Transportation is essential to economic activity, and cheap transportation enhances the availability and affordability of goods and services to poor people and allows them to take advantage of distant opportunities for medical care, education, employment, shopping, and recreation. Poor people also need light in the dark hours and heating in winter. Moving as they are, these are bad reasons because the same purpose could be much better served by giving poor people in cash the equivalent of what they now receive in subsidies tied to fossil fuel consumption. The poor would be free to choose how to spend their subvention; and states would save vast amounts by not subsidizing the much greater fossil-fuel consumption of the more affluent (including fuel for yachts and private jets). Moreover, with the prices of fossil fuels reflecting their true cost, all fossil fuel consumers would shift their consumption away from fossil fuels, thereby reducing harm to our shared environment.
The abolition of explicit and indirect fossil fuel subsidies is the best thing we can do to resolve our ecological crisis. It’s not happening because the owners of fossil fuel reserves, with hundreds of trillions at stake, use their political influence to thwart such efforts. Some two centuries ago, slaveholders did the same…until they were finally bought off.
Jacobsen: How does the Ecological Impact Fund address environmental and economic concerns?
Pogge: The Ecological Impact Fund (EIF) would incentivize and reward the development of green technologies for their deployment in a defined set of lower-income countries (the EIF-Zone). The EIF would make pre-announced annual disbursements, to be divided among registered new green technologies according to pollution-caused harm averted with them in the EIF-Zone in the preceding year — with harm assessed as a weighted sum of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq) and lost quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
In exchange for partaking in five annual EIF disbursements, originators permanently forgo patent-based monopoly privileges in the EIF-Zone (while patent privileges outside the EIF-Zone and of unregistered innovations would not be affected). The EIF would give green innovator firms new opportunities to profit from delivering green technologies in EIF-Zone countries while letting them choose, for each innovation, whether to register it or to stick with patent privileges.
With registration optional, the EIF reward rate would be endogenous and predicably equilibrate to a stable level that is fair between participating originators and EIF funders: when originators find it unattractive, registrations dry up and the reward rate rises; when the reward rate is seen as generous, registrations multiply and the reward rate declines. Fairness among participating originators is likewise assured, as all are remunerated at the same reward-to-benefit rate.
The EIF would significantly increase uptake and impact of green technologies in EIF-Zone countries: avoiding monopoly markups would lower their price, and the incentive of impact rewards would motivate registrants to promote their wide deployment and effective use. Through enhanced profit prospects, the EIF would stimulate the development of additional green technologies that — tailored to EIF-Zone populations’ needs, cultures, circumstances, and preferences — would be especially impactful there. By thus stimulating diffusion and innovation in and for the EIF-Zone, the EIF would also build and expand local capacities to develop, manufacture, distribute, deploy, operate, and maintain innovative green technologies.
The EIF requires no international unanimity. Its main funders (possibly via the Green Climate Fund or the Global Environment Facility) could include willing European states plus China, which has greatly contributed to the global ecological crisis and has accumulated substantial wealth through highly polluting activities over many decades. Additional funds might come from international offset markets and eventually from a capital endowment built over time from treaty-based state contributions, bequests, and donations by firms, foundations, and philanthropists.
(Aima Yasir)
Jacobsen: How does Germany’s Federal Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach, highlight challenges in global health systems?
Pogge: Lauterbach has repeatedly highlighted diverse global health challenges, such as healthcare workforce shortages, chronic disease management (rise in non-communicable diseases), digitalization and innovation, pandemic preparedness, climate change, and excessive health disparities. Much of this has indeed been mainly highlighting, exhortation, and advocacy. But then he was, during Germany’s 2022 G7 Presidency, the driving force behind the G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness, which aims to enhance global health by better coordinating international initiatives, by enhancing global surveillance, and by strengthening health emergency workforces. Lauterbach’s exceptional competency, energy, and hard work make him a very impressive minister.
Jacobsen: Can you touch on pharmaceutical innovation and access?
Pogge: Exclusive reliance on patent rewards in the pharmaceutical sector is morally problematic because it imposes great burdens on poor people who cannot afford to buy patented treatments at monopoly prices and whose specific health problems are therefore neglected by pharmacological research. This effective exclusion of the poor is also collectively irrational by turning low-income populations into breeding grounds for infectious diseases, which often develop new, drug-resistant strains — of tuberculosis or malaria, for instance — and by rendering us unprepared for dealing with infectious disease outbreaks such as Ebola, swine flu, and COVID-19. Pharmaceutical companies profit by letting diseases continue to proliferate, which shows how truly dumb our patent-focused innovation regime is, especially in the pharmaceutical sector.
I argue for establishing a Health Impact Fund (HIF), which would invite innovators to exchange their monopoly rents from any new pharmaceutical for impact rewards as an alternative way to recoup their R&D expenses and earn competitive profits. Innovators would find HIF registration especially attractive for new pharmaceuticals, with which they expect to generate large cost-effective health gains but only modest monopoly rents. These would tend to be effective remedies against widespread, grave, infectious, and concentrated diseases among poor people. Many of these HIF-registered pharmaceuticals would be ones that otherwise would not have been developed at all. By promoting innovations and their diffusion together, the HIF would greatly increase the benefits and, thereby, also the cost-effectiveness of the pharmaceutical sector in favor of the world’s poor.
By fully rewarding third-party health benefits (e.g., diseases you don’t catch because others around you have been treated or vaccinated), the HIF motivates pharmaceutical firms to fight diseases at the population level. The largest rewardable impact a new medicine can have is the eradication of its target disease. To fight a disease to extinction, firms would build, in collaboration with national health systems, international agencies, and NGOs, a strong public-health strategy around their HIF-registered product, deploying it strategically to contain, suppress, and ideally eradicate the target disease. Monopoly rewards, by contrast, penalize such efforts, making disease eradication a financial nightmare for CEOs and shareholders. Is this what we want?
Jacobsen: Why advocate for making new medicines accessible?
Pogge: Most pharmaceuticals can be mass-produced at very low marginal cost. Indian generics firms are extremely good at this. But they are prevented from manufacturing the newer products by India’s patent laws which India, in turn, is required to impose as a condition of membership in the WTO. Implementing the TRIPS Agreement in the world is actively preventing the supply of life-saving medicines to those who cannot afford to buy them at monopoly prices. Millions of people suffer and die due to patent enforcement. And all of us face added dangers and risks on account of eradicable diseases that proliferate and often mutate among the poor.
The standard response is that, without patents, there would be no new medicines for the rich or the poor. The HIF proposal defeats this response. Its real possibility shows that upholding the pharmaceutical sector’s patent regime constitutes a monumental human rights violation.
Jacobsen: What does the decline of the Western-centric world order and rise of a more rounded global order mean for the 21st century?
Pogge: I am not convinced the Western-centric world order — more descriptively, the United States — is truly declining in terms of power. It is fighting hard to maintain its supremacy, relying ever more on violence and military strength. It is an open question whether it will be able to beat down China the way it had previously beaten down Japan and the USSR. Much will depend on rapidly evolving technologies: drones, AI kill programs, autonomous fighting machines, biological and cyber warfare, clandestine regime-change and sabotage operations, etc. And, of course, there’s a fair chance that human civilization will be destroyed in this contest.
The Western-centric world order is palpably in moral decline: the gap between professed values and actual policies has never been greater, nor has public tolerance for mass killings (of the Gaza or the TRIPS sort) in the name of national interest and security. This moral decline is likely to continue but won’t lead to a world order that could be called “more rounded.”
The longer-term survival of human civilization depends on reversing this trend, on moralizing international relations in the way Gorbachev thought he had agreed upon with the U.S. Such a morally based world order is not too difficult to describe. But the path from here to there looks impossibly difficult. Who in the U.S. will agree to move toward a world order in which military power becomes irrelevant, in which international disagreements are resolved through impartial judicial or legislative procedures, and in which the needs and voices of foreigners have as much weight as those of compatriots?
To make moral progress, despite miserable odds, against the spreading tide of national selfishness, distrust, hostility, and confrontation, we must create highly visible exemplars of morality: multilateral initiatives that clearly protect human rights, promote justice and the common good of humanity, rather than merely the mutual benefit of their initiators. I see the Ecological and Health Impact Funds as plausible proposals.
Another would be a globally universal school lunch program that would secure each school-aged child one full, healthy meal, locally sourced, on every school day. The realization of this very affordable program would show that our internationally shared commitment “to leave no one behind” was more than empty words. Are the world’s more affluent countries, including China, prepared to spend about half a percent of their military outlays to fund such a program by providing the subsidies necessary to enable and incentivize poorer countries to participate? Let’s get it on the G20’s 2025 agenda and find out!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Brad Kuntz of Stax, a global strategy consulting firm, unpacks the far-reaching consequences of U.S. reciprocal tariffs on private equity strategy, consumer prices, and global supply chains.
As tariffs introduce fresh waves of cost volatility, firms are increasingly pivoting toward nearshoring and building more resilient supply networks. While the 2018 tariffs spurred a modest uptick in U.S. steel production, those gains were offset by broader job losses in steel-consuming industries.
In an inflationary environment, companies may be able to preserve pricing power—but they’re also undergoing a strategic shift. The old playbook of cost optimization is giving way to risk optimization, with flexibility and adaptability now prized over raw cost savings. Although prolonged tariffs risk unsettling trade flows and market stability, forward-looking firms are countering that threat with investments in automation and supplier diversification—hedging against disruption while laying the groundwork for long-term growth.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will U.S. reciprocal tariffs impact large-cap private equity strategies?
Brad Kuntz: Tariffs create short-term cost volatility and supply chain risks, forcing investors to rethink global sourcing strategies. For instance, U.S. soybean exports to China dropped 40% due to retaliatory tariffs, requiring a $28B government bailout for farmers.
Industries with global dependencies face pressure, while domestic-facing industries may benefit. A prime example: U.S. steel production increased ~6% in 2018-2019 after tariffs, but higher input costs led to more job losses in steel-consuming industries than gains in steel production.
Large-cap private equity strategies are unlikely to experience major disruption from reciprocal tariffs in the near term, private equity firms may encourage portfolio companies to take a long-term view and de-risk supply chains by nearshoring procurement of raw materials and finished goods.
Jacobsen: How will consumer prices influence investment decisions and valuations?
Kuntz: Tariffs on key imports lead to higher input costs, which ripple through pricing strategies and, ultimately, consumer demand. For example, after the 2018 U.S. steel tariffs, steel prices surged ~50%, significantly raising costs for auto, construction, and manufacturing sectors.
Companies that can pass costs on without losing market share will be better positioned, while those in highly competitive or price-sensitive markets will see margin compression.
In some cases, firms may benefit from inflationary price increases by maintaining pricing power and leveraging tariff-driven cost adjustments to push through higher pricing.
Jacobsen: How will supply chain strategies shift in response to reciprocal tariffs?
Kuntz: Companies will shift from cost-optimized supply chains to risk-optimized/resilient models, prioritizing domestic diversification and strategic nearshoring.
The trend of moving production out of China toward Southeast Asia, Mexico, and India will accelerate, while firms in critical industries may invest in domestic manufacturing despite higher costs. Following the 2018 tariffs, U.S. imports from Vietnam grew 35%, as companies sought alternatives to China to hedge against trade uncertainty.
In a high-tariff environment, cost predictability is more important than cost reduction, meaning companies prioritize flexibility and pricing stability over finding the lowest-cost supplier. Some firms may find pricing power opportunities in inflationary conditions that allow them to pass costs through and preserve or even improve margins.
Jacobsen: Will reciprocal tariffs hinder innovation in the industrial sector?
Kuntz: Reciprocal tariffs disrupt supply chains, forcing producers in both countries to seek new upstream suppliers and raw material sources. While disruptive, tariffs could also lead to innovation in cost sustainability, production efficiency, and supplier diversification.
Jacobsen: What long-term consequences of sustained rather than short-term reciprocal tariffs, particularly on economic growth and market stability?
Kuntz: Sustained tariffs lead to persistent pricing volatility, inflationary pressures, and modest increases in domestic production. Industries with strong domestic infrastructure may benefit from higher pricing power, but supply chain flexibility will remain challenging for sectors reliant on global trade.
Jacobsen: How can businesses balance immediate cost pressures against longer-term growth?
Kuntz: Companies should balance short-term margin protection with strategic investment in areas that bolster long-term protection (e.g., automation, supplier diversification, etc.). Businesses must proactively assess supply chain options to improve price predictability rather than wait for tariff policy changes. Well-positioned firms may be able to take advantage of inflationary price increases if they have strong market positioning.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Brad.
Marc Fasteau is a Vice Chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), the nation’s premier bipartisan nonprofit organization working at the intersection of trade, jobs, tax policy, and economic growth. Early in his career, he served on the professional staffs of the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the House Banking & Currency Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. He later became a partner at the New York investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. He later founded a property and casualty insurance company that was sold to Progressive Insurance.
Fasteau has been involved in international trade and industrial policy for 18 years and has contributed writings on these topics to the Financial Times Economist Forum and Palladium Magazine. He is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He resides in New York City.
Ian Fletcher is the author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why and the co-author of The Conservative Case Against Free Trade. He was previously a Senior Economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America and now serves on its Advisory Board.
Earlier in his career, he was a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council and worked as an economic analyst in private practice. His writings on trade policy have been published in The Huffington Post, Tikkun, Palladium, WorldNetDaily, The American Thinker, The Christian Science Monitor, The Real-World Economics Review, Bloomberg News, Seeking Alpha, and Morning Consult.
Together, they have authored Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries, which has received praise from politicians like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, industry leaders like Dan DiMicco, the former chairman and CEO of Nucor, and scholars like Harvard’s Willy Shih.
‘Industrial Policy for the United States’ by Marc Fasteau; Ian Fletcher. 836 pp. Cambridge University Press
A lightly edited transcript of that conversation follows.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re diving deep into a crucial and timely subject—one explored in detail in a recent book on the economics of tariffs and their implications for national security. While this issue has global ramifications, affecting countries like China, Canada, and Mexico, it is particularly significant for the United States.
First, I’d like to draw a distinction between broad, generalized tariffs—those that may or may not be strategic in practice—and the more targeted, industry-specific tariffs designed to protect American businesses. There’s often a disconnect between how tariffs are discussed in media narratives and their actual economic or geopolitical function.
With that in mind, Marc or Ian, how would you frame this debate from a more academic and expert perspective?
Marc Fasteau: The whole idea of industrial policy is selective—that’s a key word—intervention by the government in the economy.
This intervention supports the creation, retention, and development of advantageous industries. Mid-tech industries can be advantageous if they employ a lot of people at good wages. Of course, high-tech and high-value industries are advantageous because of the revenue and good jobs they provide. Because economic development is path-dependent, it also leads to the next big thing.
You don’t want to lose out on the current high-tech, high-value industry because you’ll be out of the next three. That leads directly to what kind of tariff policy you want to support. Ideally, you would tariff or subsidize those advantageous industries you’re trying to retain against assault from competitors like China and new industries that you’re trying to develop. It’s the old infant industry protection idea that goes back to Hamilton.
The most efficient tariffs follow that mode and are selective. Tariffs were used in the early days of the United States, as we all have heard in the last six weeks or so, to generate revenue for the government. Trump has proposed across-the-board tariffs–meaning tariffs on everything–in part for this purpose. That’s an inefficient way to use tariffs because some products, like t-shirts, will not lead to investment. Just higher prices and/or lower sales for the tariffed product. Nevertheless, a 10% across-the-board tariff would also stimulate a large amount of investment, job creation, and growth in other industries.
Ian Fletcher: The root idea underlying industrial policy, which tariffs are just a part of, is that it matters what industry a country has. As the phrase goes, it matters whether we make potato chips or computer chips. Now, this is something that most Americans and Canadians instinctively understand.
You can’t be a serious, modern, developed country without having large, high-value, sophisticated industries. So when you’re in a situation like today, where above all China, but also several other countries like Korea, Japan, Germany, and several smaller ones, are successfully pushing the U.S. out of the best, most advantageous industries—the industries you want to have, which are high-wage, high-profit, highly capitalized, and generally technological but not always bleeding-edge—you start to ask how you can regain your foothold.
Since imports are an obvious cause that has driven the U.S. out of many industries, tariffs become a tool to reclaim those industries. If the U.S. were to impose a flat tariff on all imports, it would begin relocating industries back to the country. This applies to other developed nations as well. Canada is in a somewhat different situation, but a flat tariff would likely bring back industries like the manufacturing of computers and laptops to the U.S. However, it would not necessarily bring back the production of goods primarily driven by cheap labour costs, like t-shirts. Even a flat tariff has strategic effects. I would say that a flat tariff on a bumpy economy isn’t flat.
But what if that is not enough? The hope is that the administration will aim for a competitive rather than an overvalued U.S. dollar and will likely implement some form of a flat tariff—though that is not guaranteed. However, when other countries have targeted specific industries, and there is a need to restore them, like semiconductors, through the CHIPS Act, an industry-specific tariff becomes necessary. Unlike a flat tariff or currency revaluation, an industry-specific tariff allows for targeted protection and investment in key sectors.
Additionally, tariffs can be country-specific. This means they can be used to reward or penalize nations based on their trade practices. For example, the U.S. can impose tariffs on China while exempting Korea.
Fasteau: The other thing to recognize is that in the U.S., we tend to assume that other countries believe in free trade. They don’t.
Other than the U.K., maybe Australia, and New Zealand, no other economically significant country has embraced free trade in theory or practiced it consistently. Even the U.S. has not practiced free trade uniformly, though it has made more efforts to do so than other countries.
So, the real question is not whether tariffs are a good idea in the abstract. The reality is that if we don’t protect advantageous industries, they will be lost to other nations that have spent the past 40 years deliberately targeting U.S. markets. Our markets are the largest and the easiest to enter, making them prime targets for foreign subsidies and trade barriers that block American exports.
This is why tariffs are one of the three pillars of every effective industrial policy.
Pictured: Marc Fasteau. (Amazon)
Jacobsen: One particularly relevant article, published on October 22, 2024, titled “The Uses and Misuses of Tariffs,” offers a compelling perspective on the nature of global trade. A key passage from that piece reads: “We now know that ‘free trade’ really amounts to a free-for-all, in which other countries practice mercantilism—a trade strategy that dates back to the days of sailing ships and treats industrial policy as a game whose object is to increase a nation’s economic power—against an unprotected America. Today, nations from China to Germany play this game, some more brutally and some more politely. But they are all chipping away at America’s best industries, from consumer electronics to steel to machine tools to commercial aircraft.”
Given this backdrop, let’s talk about the idea of a limited, strategic tariff policy. How can such an approach safeguard key sectors of the American economy—such as steel and high-tech manufacturing—without significantly driving up inflation?
Fasteau: Well, two things. First is the direct effect of increasing costs. Imports are a relatively small percentage of U.S. GDP, approximately 15%. So, a 10% across-the-board tariff would produce a price rise of 1.5% of GDP, assuming that imports did not decrease and the U.S. buyers bore the entire burden of the tariff. Neither of these assumptions is even close to realistic so that the actual price impact would be even lower. For example, the Trump steel tariffs did not result in a significant price increase.
Secondly, you get other benefits that offset any price increase from tariffs. The whole point of a tariff is to stimulate domestic investment, as seen in Trump’s steel tariffs. When those tariffs were imposed, the price of steel initially rose, but U.S. steel companies invested $16 billion in new, modern facilities and began producing steel more efficiently. Within six or seven months, the steel price returned to pre-tariff levels.
Many analyses support this: What you get in return is a trade-off. You give up slightly cheaper goods at Walmart but gain manufacturing jobs that pay real living wages instead of low-wage service jobs flipping burgers. That is the key benefit. You’re also fostering new industries and protecting them from being taken over by China and other foreign competitors.
Jacobsen: Ian, do you have anything to add?
Fletcher: Sure. There is a trade-off involved in any policy decision. We are not claiming that industrial policy or tariffs are a cost-free policy; we are also not suggesting that tariffs alone can solve all of America’s economic problems. However, we do believe they address issues that are otherwise nearly impossible to solve through any other means.
Jacobsen: You provided an industrial policy toolkit in the book. You emphasize that it is not about individual policies being singularly beneficial—the panacea point, as tools—but rather about the cumulative benefits of coordinated policies. So, what policies as tools does the American economy need now? You highlight many, but can you give us the greatest hits of that album?
Fletcher: We do have a list of industrial policies. I’ll list them to give an idea of the scope of industrial policy as a concept, and then I’ll focus specifically on the ones we need most right now.
We listed infant industry protection, local content rules, stage differential tariffs, import substitution, selective importation, export subsidies and targets, incentives for foreign firms, export processing zones, regulatory competition, credit allocation, forced savings policies, sovereign wealth funds, government procurement, state entrepreneurship, national champions, imposing competitive industry structure, fostering clusters, supporting private research, supporting public research, intellectual property policy, standard setting, technology mapping, combining policies, and picking winners.
So, what does the U.S. need from that list? First, we need a currency policy. We need a competitive dollar. Right now, we do not have one—it is significantly overvalued. Marc will likely want to talk about that in a moment. Second, we need selective tariffs for key industries and to address economically hostile nations.
The third area, which we have not touched on much, is state-supported technology development. For decades, the prevailing idea in the U.S. has been that the government should fund pure science while technologies develop in corporate labs or someone’s garage in Palo Alto. That is a charming idea, but the problem is that when you examine the history of technological development, critical technologies often undergo long gestation periods where conducting the necessary development, engineering, testing, and prototyping for profit is impossible.
This is why private corporations or individuals did not develop many of the most important technologies of the post-war era—transistors, semiconductors, computer chips, jet engines, jet aircraft, pharmaceuticals, etc. The government developed them, often for public health or national defence, and then commercialized them later. Joe Biden has expanded that model to include state-supported development for environmental protection.
Now, we have three key categories where the government is actively involved in technology development: national defense, public health, and environmental protection. In other words, the government develops technologies to protect us from external threats, deadly diseases, and natural disasters. However, we argue that the U.S. government should also support technology development purely for economic reasons—that is, simply for the sake of national prosperity.
Pictured: Ian Fletcher. (Amazon)
Jacobsen: When discussing strategic tariffs, it’s important to consider the risks of disregarding expert recommendations in favor of a blanket, one-size-fits-all tariff approach. What are the broader consequences of implementing flat tariffs, particularly when it comes to retaliatory measures from other nations?
Beyond the macroeconomic effects, how do these policies impact ordinary Americans and their standard of living—especially if such tariffs remain in place for an extended period rather than serving as a temporary economic adjustment?
Fasteau: Industrial policy is a long game, and that includes tariffs. If you are a U.S. steel manufacturer and China is dumping cheap steel into the market, and the U.S. responds by imposing a 25% tariff, that tariff must be known to be stable.
If it is only in place for a year, businesses will hesitate to make significant investments because they fear being driven out of business once the tariff is lifted. This is particularly critical for industries with long lead times and large capital investments. Other countries may retaliate with new or higher tariffs on U.S. imports. One way to ameliorate this is to reinvest our tariff revenues back into the economy in a targeted way to offset some of these effects.
Jacobsen: What about the impacts on global supply chains? Could there be disruptions resulting from flat tariffs?
Fasteau: First, the U.S. has leverage in tariff competition because we have a huge trade deficit. We import much more than we export. So, let’s say both countries impose a 10% tariff on each other’s imports. That would have a much greater impact on the surplus-exporting countries than on us.
Secondly, as Ian likes to say, there has never been a cataclysmic, spiraling trade war that got out of control in modern history. We have already been through nearly eight years of significantly higher tariffs than ever before. Yes, China retaliated with tariffs on agricultural exports, which hurt our farmers. But what did the Trump administration do? They bailed them out. Was it worth it? Yes, that step was necessary to reclaim industries critical for long-term productivity and economic growth.
But these pieces intersect, and you must consider what you are doing with the tariff revenue. For example, the now discredited traditional models predict that the cost per job saved because of a tariff is almost always unaffordably high. However, these analyses make a number of inaccurate assumptions.
First, they assume that the tariff revenue collected just gets sequestered and doesn’t get injected back into the economy through tax rebates or government spending. Second, these models assume the situation would be stable if we didn’t have a tariff, but if we don’t put on a tariff when we’re losing industries—the situation isn’t stable, it’s getting worse. Third, they don’t consider the effect tariffs have in stimulating investment and reducing the trade deficit so that we have more good jobs. Or the long-term benefits of retaining or regaining the protected industries.
Jacobsen: You gave the steel industry as an example, which had a six-to-seven-month timeline for building new facilities and increasing productivity. Considering a range of industries, what does it take to boost domestic capacity and investment when these tariffs are implemented?
Fasteau: There is no universal answer, but we can divide the question into two categories. The process is relatively quick for existing industries, such as the U.S. steel industry. These companies already know how to make marketable products, demand is proven, and they can raise capital, train workers, and scale up quickly. Many of these industries can stand up to new capacity in about a year, sometimes even less.
However, the timeline for developing entirely new industries or entering markets with technologies the U.S. does not currently produce is much longer. That is a different category altogether. In those cases, we must consider staged tariffs that gradually increase over time to allow domestic industries to ramp up production and innovation. We must also support pure research and new product development to the point where the private sector can take over.
We don’t currently make the chips that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TMSC) makes, so we need them. If it goes into effect immediately, a big tariff on them right now is probably not productive. It might be better to phase it in over three or four years or do what Trump and Biden have been trying to do, which is to get TMSC to come over here and make those advanced chips in the U.S. This way, we don’t lag, and they have to employ a lot of U.S. citizens so they learn how to do it. That’s what China does, except they strong-arm U.S. companies to transfer their technology.
This example highlights how industrial policy must be both industry-specific and competitive-context-specific. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Ian read a list of about 15 or 16 different tools, but they do not apply to every situation. Policymakers must select the appropriate tool depending on the specific technology, where the U.S. stands with it, where our competitors are, and other contextual factors.
(China Daily)
Jacobsen: Are many of the tools in this industrial policy toolkit meant to be used almost à la carte, depending on the industry?
Fletcher: You’ve touched on something important. The kind of economics we believe in is very industry-specific. In fact, that’s one of the root differences between our way of thinking and the economic mainstream, which generally likes to discuss the economy in terms of high-level aggregate, like growth is X percent, unemployment is Y percent, and so forth. They think money is money, profit is profit. It doesn’t matter whether you make it from selling computer chips or potato chips.
We think that the way industries work internally, which is what actually goes on Monday morning when people show up for work, is often very, very different. So, the economics of the computer chip industry and the economics of the potato chip industry are very, very different. And this is ultimately due to a very deep-seated difference in the mathematics of how we approach the world. We acknowledge the importance of something called increasing returns. So for you math geeks out there and you engineers, this means that anything you do in economics is going to show what’s called multiple equilibria, which is a way of saying that what happens is going to depend on contingent circumstances and choices. And you can’t abstract away like most contemporary economics wants to do.
Now, the interesting thing that follows from that is that economic history becomes a lot more important than most economists in America today think it is. You can get a PhD in economics in most universities that have the program without even studying economic history because they don’t think it’s that important. We think economic history is your friend for a couple of reasons. One, above all, it’s empirical. This is the actual hard data of how nations succeed, how industries succeed and grow, and where technologies come from. There’s a factual record of all this stuff. We should not be approaching this with mathematical abstractions as our fundamental tool.
The second thing is economic history has a consistent way of telling you the things they don’t want you to know. For example, Marc mentioned a minute ago that I like to say that in modern times there’s been no such thing as a major trade war. Well, I actually go beyond that and I say history does not give any example of a trade war ever. I’ve been saying this since my first book, Free Trade Doesn’t Work, came out in 2010, which was 14 years ago, and I have yet to have anyone respond to my challenge.
The way free traders worry about trade wars, you’d think that history would be full of them, like history is full of military wars. But if you look at history, there is no such thing as the Argentine-Brazilian trade war of 1853, or the Franco-Spanish trade war of 1971, or the Japanese-Korean trade war of 1352. It’s not there. It’s not what happens.
Fasteau: I always get amused when people start tearing their hair out about the next trade war. “Oh, America’s going to start a trade war,” then we’re going to have these horrible tariffs going up, putting every economy in the world out of sorts.
Well, take a step back and look at the ground here. The ground situation is that most of our significant economic competitors have been waging a trade war against us for 40 years, with very few exceptions. For us to pretend that if we push back, we are responsible for a trade war—rather than recognizing that pushing and shoving is the natural order of things in trade—is misguided. What we need to do is wake up.
We don’t even have to get mad. We just have to wake up and play the game. And that’s what we’re finally starting to do.
Fletcher: Yes, we just contradicted ourselves there, saying there’s no such thing as a trade war while also claiming the world has been in a trade war with us forever. I know what you mean. I would prefer to call what they’re doing mercantilism. But anyway, the point stands that even with someone as volatile as Donald Trump in the White House, we thought we were going to have a massive trade war between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
It was supposed to be a terrible disaster. Lo and behold, it got stood down, and they’re going to work it out. There’s always commercial conflict. There’s always trade conflict. But the nightmare scenario where things spiral out of control—where I tariff you, you tariff me, I hit back harder, you hit back harder, and before you know it, we’re in total isolation—has never actually happened.
Fasteau: There are some industries where the stakes are much higher, mostly involving money and wealth. Not that those aren’t important, but some conflicts are existential. For example, at least for the United States, ensuring that we are not outdone in a major way in AI by China may be existential. We just can’t let that happen.
The other stuff? You can compromise on it. It’s like disputes over money—there’s always a compromise. There’s always a way to set up a deal that lasts for a while, at least long enough for tempers to cool or technologies to change. So, the incentive on each side is to not let things get out of control.
And you can see this. Trump has a way of making his claims and stating his cases in the most irritating and insulting way possible. Despite that, everybody is still trying to make a deal because the economics say we’ve got to make a deal. And in the end, Trump wants to make a deal. The U.S. does too.
Jacobsen: Marc, you opened by noting how sometimes the United States can look excessively inward rather than, maybe, outward. What lessons can the Trump administration learn from countries like Japan, China, or Germany in building a coordinated policy framework? Even if you’re taking an à la carte approach with individual tools from that toolkit per industry, how do you assemble that à la carte method as a menu of options?
Fasteau: Well, there are a bunch of things. We have a set of general guidelines for industrial policy, and they have to suit the politics of the country. We’re never going to have the kind of top-down direction you see in other countries like China or even Japan. Political power is much more dispersed in our country. So, you need to recognize those limitations and opportunities.
Then, you need to think broadly and consider the three pillars of industrial policy: the currency, the trade policy that protects what you want to protect, and the domestic support of both important existing industries and new high-value industries for the future. If you do two out of the three, you may succeed, but you won’t do nearly as well as if you integrate all three. Every country that has succeeded has done all three. They integrate them. They coordinate them.
The second challenge, particularly for the United States, is that this is a long game. Building a new industry takes a long time. It’s a bit faster if you’re putting tariffs on to encourage more investment in an existing industry because the facilities are already there. The timeframe is much longer and more capital-intensive for supporting not just pure science but also the development of a new materials industry. So, the support programs have to be tailored to those differences.
You also want to migrate toward indirect methods, like setting quality standards, rather than brute force—just pushing money toward an industry. There are times when you have to do that, but as the economy matures, expertise should increasingly come from the private sector.
Jacobsen: Ian, any final thoughts?
Fletcher: Yes. One of the things you learn from economic history is that every developed country got that way by using protective tariffs and proactive industrial policy, going back to the Renaissance. This game has been played for hundreds of years, and the idea that free markets are everything is just a historical blip that recurs occasionally. The British had it at their peak, the United States had it at its peak, but it’s never been the norm in economics. It never has been.
Jacobsen: Ian, Marc, I appreciate your time today and your expertise. It was nice to meet both of you.
For more than four decades, Dan O’Dowd has built a reputation as a leading expert in safety and security, designing real-time operating systems and development solutions that power industries spanning aerospace, defense, and automotive technology. In this conversation, he takes aim at Tesla’s workplace culture, painting a troubling picture of racial discrimination lawsuits, union-busting tactics, and an environment fueled by relentless pressure and a lack of accountability.
O’Dowd also critiques Tesla’s declining build quality, software failures, and CEO Elon Musk’s penchant for overpromising and underdelivering—most notably with the ill-fated RoboTaxi concept. Meanwhile, Tesla faces mounting competition from Chinese automaker BYD, which has surpassed it as the world’s leading EV manufacturer. Offering a combination of affordability, cutting-edge technology, and a diverse model lineup, BYD is rapidly expanding its global footprint, including potential inroads into the U.S. market.
As Tesla’s sales slide and its dominance wanes, O’Dowd argues that Musk’s hype-driven approach is losing ground to real innovation and execution.
(Dawn Project)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Multiple allegations have been made, including large class-action lawsuits regarding workplace discrimination and safety concerns. For example, there were claims of racial discrimination at the Fremont factory, reportedly involving around 6,000 employees. Where does this workplace culture come from? It’s being allowed, but is this entirely top-down? Or does some of the blame also come from the broader work culture surrounding Fremont?
Dan O’Dowd: The people who are hired locally build the workplace culture, and when management does nothing about it, that culture spreads unchecked. I wasn’t there, but I’ve read many lawsuits and reports. I’ve seen what people have said happened. There shouldn’t be much dispute about many of the facts.
How did it happen? We know that the pressure from above to get things done is enormous—far beyond what you’d see at almost any other company. Employees are constantly pushed to meet unrealistic deadlines. Musk deliberately sets impossible schedules, forcing workers to put in 80-hour weeks. Even if they fail to meet the deadline, they still accomplish far more than they would if he had said, “Good job at 40 hours—go home.” There is no work-life balance in his companies.
Musk himself has talked about this. Walter Isaacson writes about it extensively in his biography. Still, Musk also clarifies that if you’re not 1,000% committed, you’re out. At Twitter, he told employees, “Exceptional performance is all that will be accepted.” There is no room for mediocrity. That philosophy may have contributed to his success. Still, it also means that if someone is getting results, they can behave however they want. Even if their actions go against what Musk claims to stand for, as long as they don’t directly cost him anything, they probably get away with it. The people who push the hardest and demand the most out of workers often rise within their companies.
Take the racial discrimination lawsuits. These cases include allegations of swastikas drawn in Tesla’s bathrooms, Black workers being called the N-word dozens—sometimes hundreds—of times a day, and racial segregation within the factory itself. Some employees described it as feeling like 1950s Alabama or 1980s apartheid South Africa.
When Musk was asked about these lawsuits, the press confronted him about the disturbing accusations. His response? “People should grow a thicker skin.” That was it. Did he personally order discrimination? I don’t have any evidence of that. But he hires people who push relentlessly, and that kind of culture creates an environment where abuse flourishes unchecked.
It’s about results at any cost. In Musk’s companies, success means making the impossible happen, breaking barriers, and doing what no one else has done. He wants people who will achieve those results, but he doesn’t care how they do it. That attitude is a major contributor to why these problems persist.
When complaints are filed, they disappear. Employees have reported that racial discrimination complaints were buried, ignored, or simply erased. Some workers say they filed multiple reports, and nothing was done. Others say they were fired after filing complaints—despite the fact that retaliation like that is illegal. But at Tesla, it kept happening.
Jacobsen: As a result, many of these workers are suing Musk. There have been numerous lawsuits against Tesla regarding workplace conditions, particularly at the Fremont factory. But beyond labour and discrimination issues, there are also concerns about vehicle quality and reliability. Now, shifting away from software, AI, and Full Self-Driving, we’re talking about Tesla’s physical infrastructure—its build quality.
Model 3 owners, for example, have reported windows spontaneously shattering, misaligned panels, paint imperfections, and other inconsistencies in assembly quality.
O’Dowd: There are countless reports. Even on one of our Model 3s, the back door doesn’t work. No matter how hard you try, you can’t get the damn thing open. I’ve never had a problem like that with any other car. I’ve owned Lexuses, Toyotas, and even older Teslas, and none had issues like this.
Tesla had serious build quality problems, especially in the beginning, because it was doing things in a rushed, chaotic way. It needed to meet its production targets—5,000 cars a week for a year. But when it over-automated the production lines, everything got stuck, and it couldn’t meet those goals. At one point, even Musk admitted, “We need more people, less automation.”
But instead of fixing the existing production issues, they built a new assembly line in the parking lot under tents to get the needed numbers. It was a desperate move, an “anything to make it work” philosophy. That approach led to poorly trained workers, untested processes, and a lack of quality control. They weren’t using the equipment designed for precision manufacturing—they relied on manual labour to fill the gaps naturally, which resulted in defects, repairs, and a long list of recalls.
Recently, Tesla’s issues have extended to newer models, like the Cybertruck. On top of that, Tesla now has the worst resale value of any car brand. The problem isn’t just the cars themselves—it’s the batteries. The battery pack is housed in a rigid steel casing, and if it gets dented in certain ways, insurance companies will declare the car a total loss—even if the vehicle looks completely fine and is technically repairable.
Why? Because subtle damage to the battery pack can turn the car into a fire risk. The real danger is that these fires don’t happen immediately. The car can be repaired, returned to the owner, driven for months—and then suddenly turns into an inferno. Some insurance and storage facilities even started requiring Tesla vehicles to be parked three car lengths apart in storage lots, just in case one caught fire and set off a chain reaction. If a damaged Tesla was parked five feet away from another car, it could instantly ignite and spread the fire. But if parked 30 feet away, it might burn on its own without destroying everything around it.
Tesla has had many recalls, far more than a company of its stature should. That said, I will acknowledge that the Teslas we purchased 15 years ago are still running. I’m still using those cars, and they’ve held up surprisingly well. However, earlier models were built before these more aggressive production shortcuts.
Jacobsen: In 2021, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Tesla violated U.S. labor laws when it fired an employee involved in union organizing at the Fremont plant, which has become a focal point for these labor issues.
Many of these conflicts stem from Musk’s open hostility toward unions. He’s not just against specific union efforts—he has made it clear that he opposes the very concept of unions. What are your reflections on Tesla’s union-busting tactics and Musk’s anti-union stance?
O’Dowd: As far as I know, it’s all true. You’re gone if you even mention unions or gather a few coworkers to discuss unionizing. Walked to the door. Fired. No negotiation, no discussion. Just “goodbye, and if you don’t like it, sue me.”
And that’s exactly why many of these workers sued Tesla. Some have won their lawsuits because Tesla’s actions were blatantly illegal. There wasn’t anything subtle or sneaky about it. It was straight-up retaliation. They didn’t try to hide it. They didn’t say, “We’re letting you go for performance reasons.” It was just, “You talked about a union, so you’re fired.” That’s as clear-cut as labour law violations get.
Musk’s attitude on this has been consistent. He doesn’t just ignore labour laws—he actively defies them. I believe there was a more recent case in Texas where several employees expressed concerns that his leadership style was damaging the company. The next day, they were fired. That’s the pattern. If you step out of line in any way, you’re gone.
And he’s willing to fight these lawsuits endlessly because he can afford to. If an employee sues Tesla, they might spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees. If they lose, they’re financially ruined—they could lose their house, savings, and pension. But Musk? He has $450 billion. Tesla itself is worth $1.4 trillion. The scale is so massive that he can afford to pay lawyers to make someone’s life miserable for as long as they keep fighting.
Yes, some people win their cases, but the payouts usually aren’t massive. And even when Tesla is found guilty, the penalties are often minor compared to the company’s resources. Musk operates as if the law is just another obstacle to work around.
That ties into something I mentioned earlier. Musk has been quoted multiple times—on Twitter and in interviews—saying that the only true laws are the laws of physics. Everything else, including government regulations, is just a “recommendation.” If you break that down, what he’s saying is that laws—whether labour laws, consumer protections, or safety regulations—are optional. They’re just suggestions he can consider and ignore if they don’t align with his desires.
Jacobsen: What did you find particularly enlightening about Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk?
O’Dowd: We learned quite a bit. For example, with the solar roof fiasco—while we already knew about the event, the book filled in many behind-the-scenes details that hadn’t been widely reported. It confirmed just how much of that entire presentation was staged. Another important one is about Full Self-Driving and how it got started. It’s called Autonomy Day, and it took place on April 22, 2019.
The book filled in what happened before that event. Musk invited the press, investor analysts, and the world to hear about Tesla’s progress in autonomy. On the surface, it looked like a major milestone for self-driving technology. But what we now know—thanks to Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson—is that Tesla was in a desperate financial situation at the time.
Musk confided in several people, including his cousin who worked at Tesla, that the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. Tesla didn’t have enough cash to keep going. They had been consistently losing money, selling cars at a loss while continuing to burn through more capital. Investors were getting restless. They kept investing money into Tesla, but the company wasn’t making a profit. They wanted to know: When do we see a return?
Musk was desperate to find a solution. According to the biography—and according to Grimes, his girlfriend at the time—he spent days sitting on the bed, sleep-deprived, obsessing over how to save the company. He muttered to himself, lost in thought, trying to find an answer. Then, one day, he suddenly said, I got it. I know what to do.
And that’s when he announced Autonomy Day.
At the time, Full Self-Driving (FSD) was little more than a buzzword. The only real evidence of progress was that fake demo video—the one we talked about earlier, where Tesla cut out all the failed attempts and pieced together a staged ride.
That video was already public, but beyond that, Tesla had provided very little substantive information about FSD. There were no real updates, no real breakthroughs.
So Musk decided to go all in. He would unveil everything—the full self-driving vision, the grand strategy, and Tesla’s future. The event would be a spectacle, and he would make it huge.
The problem? The software wasn’t ready. At the time of the event, Tesla’s self-driving system couldn’t even recognize traffic lights. That’s how limited the technology was. Yet Musk stood in front of investors and claimed that FSD was nearly complete. He told the world that Tesla was on the verge of solving autonomy and that only small tweaks were needed to finish it.
Then, he introduced the RoboTaxi concept, painting a vision of a Tesla fleet that could operate as an autonomous ride-hailing service.
Musk told investors: Think about how much time your car sits there, doing nothing. When you’re at work for eight hours, your car is parked. On weekends, it’s sitting idle. That’s a terrible waste of a valuable resource.
So, he proposed a system where Tesla owners could enroll their cars in a self-driving Uber-like service. Instead of sitting in a parking lot, your Tesla could be out earning money while you were at the office. You would have control—you could allow the car to be used only at certain times, and when you needed it, it would be available. But it would operate autonomously when you weren’t using it, picking up passengers and making you passive income.
The promise was enormous. Tesla owners weren’t just buying a car but an investment. Musk claimed that, within a year, this RoboTaxi network would be up and running. It never happened.
Then, he took it a step further. He asked, “What does that make your car worth?” If you buy a car today for $38,000 and it earns $30,000 per year for a long time, what’s the real value? According to his net present value calculation, that car would suddenly be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was selling Teslas when the company was desperately short on cash. Still, he told people that the cars they were buying would be worth over $200,000 within a year.
For perspective, Bernie Madoff only promised his investors an 18% yearly return. Musk was proposing a 700% annual return. People began talking about how they could start businesses with this. Buy one Tesla, use the income to buy another, then another, and soon, you’d have an entire self-driving fleet. He fueled that excitement, saying Tesla would have a massive fleet of RoboTaxis, and as soon as Full Self-Driving was ready, he would flip a switch. Instantly, every Tesla on the road—all one million of them—would be updated with the software necessary to become self-driving taxis. He insisted that every Tesla already had the required hardware, and all that was needed was a software update.
Then he went even further. He said, what does this mean for Tesla? He compared it to Uber but without any of the costs. He told investors that Tesla would bring in $50 billion yearly from this service—pure profit. Tesla wouldn’t pay for anything. Nothing.
Musk explained that Tesla wouldn’t own the cars—customers would. The owners would pay Tesla to buy the vehicles. They would handle the costs of maintenance, repairs, charging, and even cleaning out vomit in the backseat. Tesla, meanwhile, would collect billions in fees for operating the self-driving network without spending a dime. Then, he threw out another calculation. With a $50 billion annual profit and a price-to-earnings ratio of 20, he estimated that Tesla’s stock would soar—bringing the company’s valuation to one trillion dollars.
At the time, Tesla was worth about $40 to $50 billion. He told investors the RoboTaxi fleet alone would push Tesla to a trillion-dollar valuation. He couldn’t help himself—this was a pitch where anything could be said. He even claimed that Tesla had redesigned its cars to last one million miles with minimal maintenance. He painted a future where you could buy a Model 3 for $38,000 and rent it out for $30,000 a year for decades. He didn’t say the number outright, but if you do the math, the cars would be usable for 74 years.
Then, there was the battery. Musk told investors that the current Tesla battery could last 500,000 miles and the next-generation battery would last one million miles. He justified these numbers by comparing them to traditional cars, citing AAA’s estimate that the full cost of ownership for an average American car was 62 cents per mile.
According to AAA, the total cost of ownership, including maintenance, cleaning, and everything else, for a traditional gasoline-powered car is about 62 cents per mile. Musk claimed that for a Tesla Model 3—the one people would buy for $38,000—the cost would be just 18 cents per mile. That included everything: capital costs, maintenance, cleaning, repairs, and the whole package.
He didn’t stop there. He repeated that the car would last one million miles, meaning it could keep earning for 74 years. He kept making these outrageous claims because he had to. Tesla was running out of money. He was about to go under. So, he pitched this to Wall Street investors—including Cathie Wood, who some people love and others hate. But she bought it. She believed every word.
And it wasn’t just her. The analysts ate it up. They published glowing reports. The stock shot up. Tesla’s valuation went from $40–50 billion to over $1 trillion. At one point, it exceeded $1 trillion, all because of this RoboTaxi promise. That’s why Musk can’t let it go.
Wall Street believed his pitch that Tesla would rake in $50 billion a year from RoboTaxis. They believed customers would be making 700% returns on their investment, making Teslas the must-have vehicle. They believed these cars would sell like hotcakes because the financial returns were too good to pass up.
Musk even told analysts that buying any other car was completely financially insane. That was his exact wording. He said that in a meeting with securities analysts. He compared buying anything other than a Tesla to buying a horse. He told them that some people still ride horses but wouldn’t buy one for actual transportation. It wouldn’t make sense.
This was before Tesla made meaningful progress on Full Self-Driving and before they had anything that worked. Yet he stood there and told everyone that by the following year, 2020, Tesla would have the only self-driving system in the industry. He said no other automaker—not Ford, GM, or Toyota—would have anything like it.
His message was clear: Buy a Model 3 for $38,000 today, and soon it’ll be worth $200,000. No one will buy anything else. Tesla is going to dominate the entire auto market.
That was 2019. And today, in 2024, he’s still saying the same thing. He’s still claiming Tesla will eat the entire industry. He insists that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving will wipe out every other automaker. And yet, it’s the same software that still runs red lights, drives past stopped school buses, plows through crosswalks, goes the wrong way down one-way streets, and stops on railroad tracks and won’t move.
It’s a joke, but Tesla’s entire valuation is built on that promise. Musk has even said that without full self-driving, Tesla is worth zero. That’s a direct quote.
Of course, Musk also hypes up Optimus, but Optimus is nothing more than a glorified toy. There are dozens of robotics companies producing products far more advanced than Optimus today—right now, not in some hypothetical future. Musk claims Optimus will revolutionize the world, but there is no evidence. Just like there is no actual Full Self-Driving. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Optimus is a complete joke, a fraud. And Tesla? Tesla makes electric cars. That’s it. However, their sales are declining, and their CEO is becoming a liability rather than an asset.
Tesla is now losing its dominance in the electric vehicle market. BYD, a Chinese automaker, has officially surpassed Tesla as the world’s largest seller of battery electric vehicles. Tesla has fallen to number two, and while their sales are shrinking, BYD’s sales are growing astonishingly. Who runs BYD? It’s a Chinese company, but it has some notable investors—Berkshire Hathaway, for example, held a stake for years. However, they have even been selling off their shares because they’ve profited from it. Unlike Tesla, BYD isn’t just selling a few luxury electric models. They have 11 models, ranging from affordable economy cars to high-performance vehicles.
BYD even has a $11,000 hybrid. Just think about that—$11,000 for an electric car. That’s less than the price of some used gasoline cars. It’s an old Nissan Leaf-level car, but it works, and it sells fast. In China, they’re selling like hotcakes. And they don’t just sell one type of vehicle. They have hybrids, fully electric sedans, SUVs, and a Military-Style EV. They have an entire lineup covering everything Tesla promised but never delivered.
And let’s not forget Musk’s vaporware. He announced a new Tesla Roadster, a supercar that he claimed would reach 250 miles per hour, go from 0 to 60 in under one second, and—get this—fly. Yes, Musk actually suggested it might hover. But guess what? It doesn’t exist. It never has. It was nothing more than another fraudulent promise to keep investors excited.
Meanwhile, BYD actually built the car that Tesla claimed it was making. They have an EV supercar that accelerates from 0 to 60 in one second, and it flies. They even released a video showing the car jumping over a six-foot gap in the road. It lifts off the ground, flies over the hole, and lands perfectly. It’s unbelievable. While Tesla makes empty promises, BYD delivers.
And they aren’t stopping there. BYD also created a Humvee-style electric vehicle way ahead of any Tesla. It can rotate on its central axis, spinning in place without turning like a regular car. It can float on water and even drive through flooded areas. It has sideways parking, meaning you can move it directly into a tight space without turning the wheel. It effortlessly slides into position with just a foot of clearance on each side. It’s mind-blowing technology.
BYD is everything Tesla was supposed to be. They have delivered on everything Tesla promised—and they did it better. Their cars are more affordable, more advanced, and more widely available. And while Tesla shrinks, BYD is exploding in market share. They are the electric vehicle company that Musk claimed Tesla would become. They just beat him to it.
BYD is expanding everywhere. They are unstoppable. Their factories make Tesla’s so-called Gigafactories look tiny in comparison. Musk loves bragging about his Gigafactories, calling them the biggest in the world. Still, BYD has a single factory that could fit all of Tesla’s factories inside—with room to spare. That’s the scale they’re operating on. And that’s why Tesla has a real problem in China. BYD is eating their lunch.
So far, Tesla has survived in China because the electric vehicle market is booming. Over 50% of new cars sold in China are now electric. That massive demand has kept Tesla afloat, but BYD is growing faster. Meanwhile, the U.S. EV market is much smaller by comparison. And now, BYD is expanding worldwide, positioning itself to dominate everywhere.
They hit a roadblock when Trump imposed huge tariffs on Chinese goods. However, Trump also stated that if BYD builds a factory in the U.S., it would be exempt from those tariffs. He even promised that if BYD commits to spending $1 billion on a U.S. plant, the government will fast-track all necessary permits and environmental approvals within one year. There would be no waiting a decade for regulatory approval—everything would be streamlined.
The big question now is: Will BYD take that deal? Initially, they planned to build a factory in Mexico and use the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA) to export into the U.S. market. However, both Trump and Biden shut that strategy down. Biden then raised tariffs on Chinese cars to 100%, blocking BYD from the U.S. unless they build directly in America.
In Europe, however, BYD is already making moves. They’ve built a factory in Hungary, meaning they’ll produce electric cars inside the European Union and avoid the EU’s growing trade barriers. That positions them to dominate Europe while continuing their expansion into South America, India, and beyond. The only major market where BYD is still blocked is the U.S.—but even that might change if they decide to start manufacturing here.
The swarm is coming. EVs aren’t an exotic niche anymore—they’re everywhere. I’ve driven only electric cars for 15 years, and my wife has for 13 years. This is not a new idea. But Tesla isn’t alone anymore. BYD is proving that it’s possible to mass-produce high-quality EVs profitably without relying on hype or empty promises.
Founded in 1987, the Korean Women’s Associations United (KWAU) emerged as a coalition of women’s rights groups committed to advancing gender equality, democracy, and social justice in South Korea. Over the decades, KWAU has been at the forefront of major legal and policy victories, from the abolition of the patriarchal Hoju family registry system in 2008 to the implementation of gender quotas in politics and stronger protections against sexual and domestic violence. However, as South Korea’s political landscape shifts, so do the challenges facing the feminist movement.
With conservative governments pushing back against gender policies, KWAU has recalibrated its strategy—emphasizing public awareness campaigns, international solidarity, and grassroots organizing to sustain the momentum for women’s rights. Kyungjin Oh, former Executive Director and now Vice Chair of KWAU’s International Solidarity Center, speaks to the movement’s latest battles: a growing anti-feminist backlash among young men, the country’s record-low birth rate, and the broader rollback of gender equality under conservative leadership. Despite mounting opposition, KWAU remains steadfast—mobilizing intergenerational feminist activism, leveraging UN advocacy mechanisms, and rallying national support to assert that gender equality isn’t just a political stance but common sense.
(Facebook)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Can you start by giving some of your background?
Kyungjin Oh: I began my activism career in 2014. After two years of experience working with the Korean Women’s Political Solidarity, a member organization of KWAU, I moved to KWAU in February 2016. So, I have been working with KWAU for more than nine years. Since my recent transition, I would like to briefly introduce my new role before moving on to the main questions.
We are increasingly focusing on international solidarity and activism, particularly in the Asia-Pacific. Although feminist issues are diverse globally, we are working to amplify women’s voices from Asia-Pacific countries.
KWAU has a strong tradition of women’s organizing. Many women’s rights organizations in the Asia-Pacific region look to KWAU’s experiences to learn how to build strong organizations and effectively mobilize women’s voices nationwide, as we have done for more than 37 years.
We are trying to share our organizing experiences and build solidarity and a network among the Asia-Pacific countries. I will strengthen the women’s network in the region. One organization is APWLD—the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development.
APWLD is also an umbrella networking organization comprising more than 200 women’s rights organizations in the Asia-Pacific region. KWAU plays a major role in organizing women’s networks in the Asia-Pacific region.
Additionally, we are engaged in many advocacy activities directed at the United Nations. For example, at the domestic level, it has become increasingly challenging to raise women’s voices under the current South Korean government, which is opposed to feminist values and women’s organizations’ activities.
So, we are utilizing UN mechanisms to strengthen our advocacy at the domestic level by gaining international recognition and support.
Jacobsen: What are the key advocacy areas of the Korean Women’s Associations United today?
Oh: KWAU was founded in 1987, so it has been more than 37 years now.
Traditionally, we have focused on legal and policy advancements related to women’s rights and gender equality. For more than 30 years, we have concentrated on leading legal and policy changes, engaging in advocacy efforts directed at the government and the National Assembly. We work to strengthen networks and partnerships with government stakeholders and politicians who support women’s rights.
Yes, we have made significant progress. For example, we contributed to the adoption of the Sexual Violence Law in the 1990s. Additionally, we played a role in implementing gender quotas in politics, which require political parties to nominate at least 50% of women candidates in the proportional representation system.
However, despite these legal and policy advancements, we face a new challenge. Internationally, South Korea is often regarded as a country with high-quality laws and policies on gender equality and women’s rights. However, these laws are poorly implemented due to low gender awareness in society.
Therefore, we focus more on raising public awareness about feminist values and gender equality. We aim to reach more people, particularly young women, university students, and teenagers, so they can understand that feminist values are a fundamental part of common sense.
Jacobsen: How have KWAU’s strategic priorities evolved? Targeted objectives for the organization in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. They would have been different in each decade. How have they changed over time?
Oh: The history of Korean democracy is relatively short. Only in 1987 did Korea achieve formal democracy. During the military regime before 1987, Korean citizens had no right to elect their president directly.
KWAU was founded in 1987, at the same time that Korea transitioned to democracy. Many of our senior members who founded KWAU were activists who fought for Korean democracy. However, they soon realized that without an independent organization dedicated specifically to women’s rights, women’s rights would never be fully achieved.
Even within the democracy movement, women were not recognized as genuine activists. Korea was, and still is, a patriarchal society, and even within the pro-democracy movement, women faced gender-based discrimination.
Our senior members saw an urgent need to establish a women’s rights organization fully dedicated to fighting for gender equality. That is why KWAU was founded.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, KWAU focused on passing laws and policies that would protect and advance women’s rights. At that time, South Korea had very few legal protections for women. Although there were some policies for women, they were based on conservative family values, which primarily saw women as mothers and homemakers.
During this period, we worked to introduce and improve legal protections for women. That is why, from the 1990s to the early 2000s, we achieved many legal and policy advancements for women’s rights.
From the 1990s to the early 2000s, the women’s movement achieved many legal and policy advancements.
However, from the mid-2000s to 2010, we faced increasing challenges. We had so much success in the 1990s and early 2000s because we could gain support from the National Assembly, especially politicians favoring women’s rights. At that time, the government was led by progressive or semi-progressive parties, which allowed us to collaborate with policymakers and government institutions.
However, in February 2008, the Lee Myung-bak government took power. His administration was highly conservative and strongly opposed the progressive women’s rights movement.
After his term, Park Geun-hye became South Korea’s first female president. Still, she was also from a conservative party—the party currently in power, the People Power Party (PPP). From 2008 to early 2017, the women’s rights movement struggled to progress significantly. Even though we remained active in advocacy efforts, we received very little support from the government, as it sought to suppress progressive women’s activism.
So, from the late 2000s to early 2017, we could not achieve the same legal and policy advancements as in the 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, we shifted our focus to strengthening the grassroots movement.
In February 2017, Park Geun-hye was impeached, and her administration ended.
After that, the Moon Jae-in government took power. His government favoured women’s rights activism more than the previous conservative administrations. However, there were still gaps between the demands of the women’s movement and the government’s policies.
During the Moon Jae-in administration, we saw the rise of a new wave of feminist activism, particularly among young women. Many of these activists were not affiliated with traditional women’s rights organizations, but they self-organized, using online platforms to advocate for gender equality.
In May 2022, after Moon Jae-in’s presidency, Yoon Suk Yeol came to power. As you mentioned, one of his central campaign promises was anti-feminism.
He mobilized young male voters who were against feminist values, the MeToo movement, and young women’s organizing efforts. He openly opposed gender equality policies and promised to dismantle institutions that supported women’s rights. Unfortunately, he became president.
Under Yoon Suk Yeol’s administration, for the past three years, the women’s rights movement has faced severe repression.
(Facebook)
Jacobsen: Now, for those who may not be aware—just as a note on cosmic irony—what happened to that government in December? Where is that anti-feminist leader now?
Oh: After he took office in May 2022, progressive women’s rights organizations led the opposition to him.
Over the past three years, Yoon Suk Yeol’s policies have been extremely regressive, not only on women’s rights but also on social progress in general. Many progressive civil society organizations have opposed his political agenda.
In October and November of last year, civil society organizations—including us—began internal discussions about whether we should actively campaign for his impeachment.
However, in December, everything escalated suddenly. Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, which outraged many people. So, just two or three weeks ago, we gathered in large numbers.
Even 30 or 40 years ago, during the era of dictatorship in Korea, people suffered immensely. Many of our parents, their friends, siblings, and family members were disappeared, kidnapped, tortured, and even killed by the authoritarian government.
So, when martial law was declared, its symbolic meaning was clear to the Korean people. It immediately reminded them of those painful times—before Korea achieved democracy. Martial law was declared on December 3. However, within one to two hours, the National Assembly passed a resolution to lift it. The martial law was lifted just six hours after it was declared.
Although the immediate crisis was resolved, the people and progressive politicians came to a clear realization: Yoon Suk Yeol is too dangerous to remain in office. He cannot be allowed to serve even one more day as president.
Civil society organizations urgently formed a coalition in response to force him out of office. We began organizing regular demonstrations before the National Assembly, calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment. On December 14, the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion.
Now, we are holding regular mass demonstrations in Gwanghwamun Square and Seoul Square, demanding that the Korean Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment. The court’s final decision on whether to remove Yoon Suk Yeol from office is expected in late March.
However, even though Yoon Suk-you is in prison, he is actively working to organize ultra-conservative groups. Korean society is now profoundly politically divided.
Jacobsen: What do you want to say about your thoughts on the potential presidential election?
Oh: Yes. Well, there are a few things to consider. First, regarding the anti-feminist leader who attempted to declare martial law, to clarify, martial law is an extremely serious crime under the Korean Criminal Act, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So, one way or another, Yoon Suk Yeol will receive a prison sentence. However, the dangerous thing is that, as I mentioned before, even while in prison, he is actively working to organize ultra-conservative groups.
The People Power Party (PPP), which Yoon Suk Yeol belongs to, is doing everything possible to prevent the progressive party from winning the next presidential election. Meanwhile, progressive civil society organizations like ours organize large demonstrations, press conferences, and public advocacy campaigns. However, in central Seoul, many people still support the messages of the ultra-conservative groups.
This has led to street conflicts, as both sides hold mass demonstrations simultaneously, with extreme and polarizing messages. South Korea is now witnessing a deep political divide, much more than before.
You probably already know this, but we have a very strong ultra-conservative Christian network in Korea. This group holds significant political power, and its influence is growing. The People Power Party (PPP) is now strengthening its ties with these ultra-conservative Christian groups because they believe this Christian network can mobilize the conservative public.
This is not our first experience organizing an impeachment campaign. We went through a similar movement seven years ago, between February 2016 and February 2017, when we successfully pushed for President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment. However, back then, Korean society was not as politically divided as today.
At that time, even some conservative politicians within Park Geun-hye’s party acknowledged that she had committed serious wrongdoing. They supported her impeachment to protect their political future, believing that allowing her to remain in office would be more damaging in the long run. This created space for social and judicial accountability to take place.
However, the situation today is entirely different. The People Power Party (PPP) is now taking an extreme position—it is doing everything it can to prevent the progressive political party from gaining power in the next presidential election.
One of their most targeted demographics is young men. They are actively mobilizing discontent among young men, particularly those who feel alienated by feminist policies or economic instability.
Jacobsen: That’s happening here too. We see the same pattern.
Oh: The PPP and its allies are weaponizing grievances to build a reactionary political base, much like we’ve seen in other countries.
Many people support President Yoon Suk Yeol because of his anti-feminist campaigns. His base consists largely of young men who feel alienated by feminist policies and older, conservative voters who tend to oppose progressive social change.
Jacobsen: South Korea has a significant Christian population alongside a large non-religious majority. Which Christian denominations have been most opposed to feminist activism, and which religious groups have supported gender equality efforts through advocacy and activism?
Oh: Our strategy for the women’s rights movement is based on collaboration and building strong networks. KWAU is an umbrella organization representing 36 women’s rights organizations across South Korea. Among our member organizations is the Women’s Theological Coalition, a group of progressive Christian women who actively support LGBTQ+ rights and advocate for human rights protections for sexual minorities.
They are also deeply involved in campaigns for the Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law, which aims to protect marginalized communities from discrimination. In addition to this, we have other progressive Christian allies who support human rights, feminist movements, and broader social justice issues. However, these progressive Christian groups are quite small and constantly targeted by ultra-conservative religious groups.
In South Korea, 70–80% of Christians tend to be politically conservative. Their conservatism is not only political but also cultural, particularly when it comes to women’s rights and gender equality. Many of them oppose abortion, believe that women should be married to men, and insist that the traditional family structure must be preserved. According to their worldview, women’s primary roles should be to care for the family, do housework, give birth to children, and nurture them. This traditionalist mindset still dominates much of South Korean Christianity.
Jacobsen: South Korea ranks low on gender equity, with surveys showing a stark gap in how men and women perceive inequality. Given this, what is KWAU’s most significant sociopolitical achievement?
Oh: As mentioned earlier, KWAU’s primary strategy is legal and policy advocacy—pushing for legislative advancements through government lobbying and engagement with the National Assembly. Over the years, we have achieved many legal and policy advancements, and these changes have significantly shaped Korean society.
One of the most transformative victories in the fight for women’s rights was abolishing the patrilineal family headship system—the Hoju system. For many years, the Hoju system legalized households by making only male family members the legal heads. In official civil documents, all other family members were listed under the Hoju (family head). Under this system, a woman’s legal status was defined by a male family member, usually her father or eldest son.
For example, when a husband died, his firstborn son would automatically inherit the family headship, even if the mother was still alive. This system legally reinforced gender discrimination, denying women equal legal status within the family.
The Hoju system affected women in many ways, particularly in inheritance laws, family registration, and divorce proceedings. For example, if a husband and wife divorce and the wife later remarries, she cannot change her child’s family name without the explicit permission of her former husband. In Korean society, family names carry deep social significance.
If a child had a different family name from their father, they would often be bullied in school. There is a strong cultural expectation that children should inherit their father’s surname, and divorced families are often socially marginalized in our conservative society.
Because of this, KWAU viewed the Hoju system as a clear example of gender-based discrimination. We organized extensive campaigns and demonstrations, contacting the National Assembly and pro-women’s rights politicians.
Additionally, we collaborated with government partners, including the Ministry of Gender Equality and Justice, to push for legal reform. Finally, in February 2005, the National Assembly passed a bill abolishing the Hoju system.
Of course, there were some limitations. At the time, we were unable to eliminate all remnants of the Hoju system due to strong opposition from senior conservative male groups. However, the abolition of the patrilineal family headship system remains one of the clearest examples of societal change in South Korea.
Jacobsen: The Hoju system was ruled unconstitutional in 2005 and officially abolished in 2008, marking a major step toward gender equality. This mirrors broader struggles to replace patriarchal structures with more equitable systems. How does KWAU collaborate with other feminist organizations to advance women’s rights?
Oh: Yes. Traditionally, KWAU has been an umbrella organization uniting various women’s rights organizations across South Korea. Our main strategy has always been collaboration—building networks and strengthening alliances with other feminist and civil society organizations supporting progressive women’s rights values.
For example, in February 2017, young women began coming forward to speak about their experiences with sexual violence. They led efforts to raise awareness of sexual harassment and abuse—not only in their daily lives but also in digital spaces where online sexual violence was becoming a growing issue.
KWAU recognized that we needed to expand our power base to effectively advance women’s rights. This meant reaching out to unorganized women, particularly those in their twenties and thirties, and encouraging them to participate in campaigns and demonstrations.
When the #MeToo movement gained momentum in February 2017 and 2018, KWAU played a critical role. While young women were leading grassroots activism, KWAU leveraged its established networks to connect their voices to policymakers. As an organization with decades of experience in legal and policy advocacy, we positioned ourselves as a bridge—directly bringing women’s grassroots demands to government officials and the National Assembly.
We organized seminars, press conferences, and policy discussions, creating spaces where politicians and government representatives could hear women’s voices. Our goal was to translate grassroots activism into tangible policy change. Through these efforts, we were able to convey the real-life experiences of women on the ground and pressure the government to respond with concrete legal reforms. We pushed for stronger protections against sexual violence, as well as systemic changes to address broader gender inequalities.
Of course, there are various dynamics within the feminist movement itself. Different generations, issues, and perspectives naturally lead to divergent opinions and approaches. However, these discussions and debates are ultimately productive because they help refine our strategies and ensure we remain inclusive and representative.
KWAU actively organizes women, particularly young women in South Korea, and ensures their perspectives and demands are heard. We continue to listen, adapt, and push forward, ensuring that feminist activism leads to real policy change and greater gender equality.
Jacobsen: I don’t know if there’s a phrase for this in Korean, but in English, there’s an expression called “narcissism of small differences.” It’s pretty self-explanatory, but it’s a well-known phenomenon, particularly in feminist movements in North America. For example, in umbrella organizations, one feminist group may strongly disagree with another over which issues should be prioritized, which can escalate into an organizational conflict. Often, these disputes are less about ideology and more about clashes between the leaders of those groups. Is this a phenomenon in feminist organizations in South Korea as well? Is this an international trend?
Oh: Yes, this happens here, too. As you mentioned, it also relates to priority areas in the feminist movement. The movement has many different perspectives and priorities stemming from generational and ideological differences. KWAU was founded in 1987, and many founding members had direct experience in the Korean democracy movement.
For them, ideology was central. They believed we must change the system for women to be truly free. This meant studying how capitalism functions, how political and economic structures shape women’s experiences, and how these systems exert both direct and indirect influence over women’s daily lives.
As an older feminist organization, KWAU has always taken a broad, systemic approach to women’s rights. We examine how political, economic, and social structures intersect with gender issues and advocate for structural reforms rather than focusing solely on individual cases of discrimination or violence.
However, some of the younger generation of feminists in South Korea take a different approach. Many young women today are extremely vocal and active in pushing for social change. They have a strong gender consciousness and recognize how harmful Korea’s patriarchal traditions are for women.
However, their activism is often rooted in personal experiences rather than systemic analysis. As a result, their primary areas of focus are gender-based violence and digital sexual violence—issues they experience in their daily lives.
In recent years, because of the growing visibility of young women’s activism, journalists, politicians, and the broader public have started to pay more attention to sexual violence and online harassment. As a result, these issues are now widely framed as the most urgent feminist concerns in South Korea.
Of course, KWAU fully supports efforts to combat sexual violence, as we also see it as an important issue. However, addressing one problem at a time without structural and systemic changes will not be enough.
That is why KWAU focuses on how political, economic, and social systems shape women’s lives. While we support campaigns against sexual violence, we also emphasize the need for broader structural reforms that will create lasting gender equality in South Korea.
Jacobsen: Education has long been an arena where men and women who support gender parity have fought for change. But what contemporary challenges do you see in advancing gender equality in South Korea today?
Oh: I’d like to highlight two key issues. First, as I mentioned earlier, there is a growing divide in gender awareness—not just regarding feminist values but progressive social values in general.
Young women are becoming increasingly progressive and engaged, while young men are moving in the opposite direction, becoming more conservative. Young women today are more willing to speak out about their experiences with gender discrimination and social injustice. They actively participate in movements, including demonstrations calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment.
Right now, more than 80% of the demonstrators calling for his impeachment are young women, especially those in their teens and twenties. They are learning that feminist values are foundational for achieving societal structural change. However, young men are becoming increasingly conservative. Many of them see feminism as a threat rather than as a movement for equality.
In a patriarchal society like South Korea, young men still benefit from gender inequality in many ways. But now, they feel that feminist activism is reducing their status. Many of them believe that women’s rights movements are harming society and target feminist organizations as enemies.
This growing gender divide is one of the biggest contemporary challenges in advancing gender equality in South Korea today. Everyone, including young men, is becoming more vulnerable in this harsh capitalist society. Economic instability and increasing social pressures have left many insecure about their future.
However, many young men blame the feminist movement for their declining status rather than recognizing the broader structural problems in economics, employment, and politics. They see the strength of the women’s rights movement as the reason for their struggles rather than acknowledging the systemic issues affecting all people.
This trend became especially clear three years ago when Yoon Suk Yeol ran for president. Many young men actively supported his anti-feminist ideology, believing his campaign promises to push back against feminism and reassert traditional gender roles.
Now, we are seeing the same pattern in pro-Yoon Suk Yeol demonstrations. Many participants are young men standing at the forefront of ultra-conservative activism.
Earlier this year, we saw how extreme these movements could become in January. A group of ultra-conservative demonstrators attacked the court, breaking windows and physically harming government officials.
Jacobsen: That sounds like Trump supporters storming the U.S. Capitol.
Oh: Yes, it’s a very similar situation.
More than 100 people were arrested following the attack, and they are now facing prosecution. However, most concerning is that most of them were young men. Right now, young men are in charge of supporting Yoon Suk Yeol and ultra-conservative values. This presents one of the biggest challenges for women’s rights activism today.
How do we persuade young men that women’s rights and feminist values are common sense? How do we show them that gender equality is a fundamental part of progressive social values rather than something harmful?
This is the first major challenge we are facing. The second challenge is South Korea’s record-low birth rate, which is the lowest in the world.
The current government’s response to this issue has been deeply regressive. Instead of addressing why people don’t want to have children, they are framing women as tools for childbirth—as if their primary role is to give birth and care for families under a population control plan rather than ensuring that women have reproductive rights and autonomy.
Of course, we recognize that the birth rate crisis is real. It reflects serious societal issues; South Korea will become unsustainable if we do not address them. However, the root problem is not that women don’t want to have children—it’s that they do not feel secure enough to do so. If women believe that this society does not provide a safe and supportive environment for raising children, then they will not choose to have children.
The current government’s political vision does not address these structural problems. Instead, they are taking an extremely regressive approach, treating women as birth-givers rather than autonomous individuals with the right to make their own reproductive choices. This is the second major contemporary challenge that feminist activists in South Korea must confront.
Jacobsen: How does KWAU address workplace, economic, and home-based discrimination in South Korea?
Oh: KWAU is an umbrella organization that brings together 36 women’s rights organizations. Each member organization specializes in a specific agenda related to women’s rights.
For example, some of our member organizations focus specifically on workplace issues, such as sexual harassment and labour rights for women. Others work on gender-based violence, including consultation services for women who have experienced sexual violence, digital harassment, intimate partner violence, or domestic abuse.
KWAU does not directly provide consultation services or handle individual cases of gender discrimination or violence. Instead, we act as a coordinating body, ensuring that the concerns and demands of our member organizations reach the National Assembly, politicians, and government officials.
Because of our experience and network in legal and policy advocacy, we serve as a bridge between grassroots feminist organizations and policymakers, ensuring that women’s rights issues are addressed at a systemic level.
Jacobsen: What are KWAU’s goals for the coming years?
Oh: We have many goals because society is not changing rapidly enough.
Our first major goal is to create a society where gender equality and parity are recognized as common-sense values. As I mentioned, we want to ensure that education plays a key role in shaping gender equality.
We envision a society where children and teenagers learn—both in schools, at home, and in society at large—that women and girls deserve equal respect as human beings. They should not be seen as sexual objects or targets for sexual exploitation and violence. The reason I emphasize this is because of the deepfake sexual violence crisis we faced last year.
Jacobsen: Yes, that issue has been happening over here as well.
Oh: More than 80–90% of the victims were teenage girls, and the majority of perpetrators were teenage boys.
This means that boys are learning harmful behaviours from a young age, using AI and deepfake technology to manipulate images of their classmates for sexual exploitation. This is deeply disturbing because it shows that misogyny and the backlash against feminism are normalized at a young age.
So, one of our top priorities is to reform school curricula and ensure that teenagers—both boys and girls—understand feminist values as an essential foundation for a sustainable society. Our second major goal is to strengthen women’s rights organizations.
Over the past three years, many women’s rights organizations in South Korea have become financially and organizationally vulnerable due to the political climate and lack of government support.
The government’s stance must change because women’s rights organizations have played a critical role in advancing legal and policy reforms. Without their efforts, we would not have achieved so many legislative changes for gender equality.
We want to build a society where the public recognizes these organizations’ importance and is willing to donate even a small percentage of their income to sustain civil society organizations that work for progressive social values, including women’s rights.
Jacobsen: It was lovely to meet you. Thank you so much for your time today—especially for this extended conversation.
Dan O’Dowd is a leading authority on software systems that are not only failproof but also impervious to hacking. Over a career spanning more than four decades, he has developed secure operating systems for some of the world’s most high-stakes projects, including Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, the Boeing B1-B Intercontinental Nuclear Bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. A graduate of the California Institute of Technology, O’Dowd has dedicated his career to pioneering safety-critical and unhackable software, setting industry standards in embedded security.
Beyond his technical expertise, O’Dowd has emerged as a vocal critic of Tesla’s approach to safety and corporate accountability. He points to a troubling pattern of retaliation against those who challenge the company’s practices. He highlights the case of Missy Cummings, a safety expert whose appointment to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was reportedly blocked due to Elon Musk’s influence. He also sheds light on the plight of Christina Balan, a former Tesla employee who was allegedly forced to resign after raising safety concerns. Whistleblowers within the company, O’Dowd argues, have faced severe repercussions—whether through legal battles, smear campaigns, or, in the case of former Tesla technician Martin Tripp, a false report that led to an armed police response.
O’Dowd further critiques Tesla’s marketing tactics, arguing that staged product demonstrations for Full Self-Driving, the Cybertruck, and solar roofing systems have misled consumers and regulators alike. He warns that the company’s pattern of deception, coupled with a lack of accountability, poses serious ethical and safety risks.
Used car salesmen at the White House.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: On the topic of progress, I’d like to discuss Tesla’s critics. What typically happens to those who have publicly scrutinized Tesla or its products? This isn’t about Elon Musk’s personality or politics, but rather about product-based critiques. When someone systematically evaluates Tesla’s claims, gathers evidence, and reports on the real-world performance of its products, what kind of response do they usually face?
Dan O’Dowd: It depends, but there’s a troubling trend. Let me give you an example. There’s a woman named Missy Cummings, a former fighter pilot and a professor at Duke University. Her expertise lies in safety and automotive engineering, though I don’t recall her specialty. About three or four years ago, she put a couple of her grad students on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving beta program to evaluate it. They wrote up a report detailing how bad the system was, and the response was vicious.
She was inundated with attacks—vicious ones. We’ve got documentation of tweets sent to her. She was accused of being a porn star, among other absurd and offensive things. It was a ridiculous smear campaign aimed at discrediting her because she’s an authoritative figure in her field.
Jacobsen: Did that affect her career or ability to continue her work?
O’Dowd: It did. At one point, NHTSA—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—tried to hire her. She’s a respected expert, after all. However, Elon Musk called the heads of NHTSA and screamed at them, demanding that she be disqualified because, according to him, she was “biased” against Tesla.
The irony is that she was critical of Tesla because the product is terrible. Yet Musk essentially got to choose his regulator, saying, “This person can’t oversee us because they’re critical of our product.” She was disqualified.
Jacobsen: What is she doing now?
O’Dowd: She works for the California DMV and attends a new university—though I don’t recall which one. We’ve got all of that documented if you want it.
Another example is Christina Balan. She worked for Tesla and received an email from Elon Musk—not just her, but the entire company. The email said, “If you ever identify a safety issue, report it to your boss or whoever handles such matters—but also email me directly because I want to ensure it gets followed up.”
If you sent safety concerns directly to Elon, the issues would be taken seriously. Employees knew that the responsible parties would be pressured to follow up once it reached Elon. One employee, Christina Balan, found a safety defect in the car. It involved the floor mats, which would curl up and potentially block the accelerator or brake pedal. She wrote a report, sent it to the appropriate department, and, as instructed, also sent a copy to Elon Musk.
The next day, she was called in and asked to “come with us.” They put her in a room with no windows and interrogated her with security personnel present. She asked, “What is going on?” They accused her of claiming that Tesla was unsafe. She responded, “What? I was following instructions. I have the email that said to send safety concerns directly to Elon.”
Jacobsen: What happened next?
O’Dowd: They told her she had to resign. She said, “I don’t want to resign. I’m not leaving the company.” But they insisted, saying, “You have to resign.” According to her story—which, to be clear, I’m recounting as she told it—they then threatened to revoke the green card applications for everyone in her department if she didn’t resign immediately.
Christina was an immigrant on an H-1B visa, and they used that as leverage. Essentially, they told her that not only would her green card application be jeopardized, but so would those of her colleagues. Under that pressure, she left the company. Since then, there have been numerous lawsuits, and it’s turned into a gigantic mess. You can verify this. We have all the documentation.
Jacobsen: That’s shocking.
O’Dowd: It gets worse. There’s another case involving a former Tesla employee in Norway. To be clear, what he did was not legal, but it highlights internal issues at Tesla.
This employee was upset with Tesla over some unresolved matter—I don’t recall the exact details—and decided to take a copy of Tesla’s customer support database and send it to a European newspaper, Der Spiegel or another major European outlet. The newspaper started digging through the database, and the findings were shocking. There were numerous documented cases of questionable practices.
For example, customer support employees were trained to gaslight customers who came in with complaints. If someone said their car wasn’t achieving the advertised mileage per charge, the support staff were instructed to talk the customer out of filing a claim.
Here’s the kicker: every time a staff member successfully persuaded a customer not to file a complaint, they’d ring a bell to celebrate. It was a culture of rewarding employees for dismissing legitimate customer concerns.
Jacobsen: That’s appalling.
O’Dowd: Absolutely. There’s more, too, like issues with the front axle. These problems and the culture around them have been documented in articles, and the fallout has been significant. There was a claim that the front axle on Model X vehicles could break. The regulators investigated and issued a recall in China, requiring Tesla to fix the problem.
When American regulators found out about the Chinese recall, they decided to open an investigation and potentially issue a recall in the U.S. Tesla, however, pushed back, saying, “No, we’re not going to do a recall.” Their argument? “That’s bullshit. We were forced to do that in China. Those regulators hate us and want to put us out of business. It’s unfair.” Tesla denied any front axle or suspension issue, calling the entire claim “ridiculous.”
Jacobsen: That’s an incredibly toxic culture.
O’Dowd: It was, and the whistleblower paid a heavy price. He was blasted from all sides, received death threats, and his life was completely upended.
Another case involves Martin Tripp, who worked at Tesla’s Nevada factory. He claimed significant waste and fraud was happening inside the company. Tripp leaked technical data to a reporter, which was likely illegal. Still, the reporter published a series of stories based on the information.
Jacobsen: How did Tesla respond?
O’Dowd: Tesla was furious. They read the stories and immediately tried to find out who the leaker was. They tapped employees’ phones and conducted internal surveillance until they identified Tripp as the source.
Jacobsen: That’s incredibly invasive.
O’Dowd: These cases highlight how Tesla deals with criticism—through aggressive tactics aimed at silencing critics and whistleblowers rather than addressing the underlying issues.
They eventually confronted him, though I’m unsure if he was officially fired. Regardless, it became a big issue, and Tesla was upset about it. What happened next was outrageous. Tesla allegedly told the police that Martin Tripp had threatened to return to the factory and “shoot the place up,” which he hadn’t.
Tripp, terrified, had holed up in a motel in Reno, Nevada because he feared for his safety. The police couldn’t find him initially, so they put out a BOLO—“Be On the Lookout”—for a potential shooter.
Elon Musk, a walking PSA of why drugs are bad.
Jacobsen: How did they figure out where he was?
O’Dowd: That’s the questionable part. It’s speculated that Tesla told the police where Tripp was hiding, but how did they know? Most likely, they had hacked his phone or used some other surveillance method to track him down.
There’s a podcast series—three or four episodes—dedicated to investigating Musk’s tactics, including accusations of spying on critics, stalking them, and gathering personal information about anyone who speaks out against him. From what I’ve heard, the reporting on this is very thorough.
Jacobsen: What happened after they located him?
O’Dowd: Tesla informed the police that Tripp was holed up in a specific motel room in Reno. The SWAT team was deployed, with officers arriving armed and ready, fingers on triggers, under the impression that Tripp was a dangerous shooter planning to attack the factory.
They dragged him out of the motel room. He was crying as they pulled him out, understandably terrified. Thankfully, the officers didn’t shoot him, but this was effectively a case of swatting. Filing a false shooter report like that is incredibly dangerous—it could have easily ended in someone being killed.
Jacobsen: That’s horrifying.
O’Dowd: What Tripp did was wrong—he took proprietary data from Tesla and gave it to a reporter, which he shouldn’t have done. But swatting someone, putting their life at risk like that, is far worse. All it takes is one overanxious officer pulling the trigger for it to end in tragedy.
Jacobsen: Were there other incidents like this?
O’Dowd: Another one involving Elon Musk when he took over Twitter. When Musk took over Twitter, the “Trust and Safety Team” was in place. It was a euphemism for censorship—deciding what content could stay up and what needed to be taken down. When Musk bought Twitter, he initially didn’t fire the team’s head. Musk publicly praised him, saying he was a great guy doing a fantastic job and that he’d keep him around to continue his work.
However, as Musk started implementing new policies, the dynamic changed. The guy, realizing he no longer fit in, quietly left. He didn’t make a scene, didn’t badmouth Musk, didn’t go to the press. He wanted to move on, find another job, and start fresh.
Jacobsen: That seems like a reasonable approach.
O’Dowd: You’d think so. But Elon, being Elon, had a fit. He got pissed off and sent the hordes after the guy. Suddenly, the man was being harassed—people showed up at his house, issued threats, and made him fear for his safety. It got so bad that he had to move. He left his home and relocated to escape the storm Musk unleashed.
Jacobsen: That’s extreme.
O’Dowd: It is. And the ironic part is that this guy wasn’t looking to cause trouble. He wasn’t like others who went to the press with accusations or tried to stir things up. He just wanted to leave quietly. But Elon, true to form, made it personal and turned it into a crisis.
Jacobsen: This behaviour seems to be a recurring theme with Musk.
O’Dowd: During his recent drama involving lawsuits—or “lawsuit, no lawsuit, lawsuit, no lawsuit”—Sam Altman publicly said on a prominent news show, “Elon is a bully.” Altman also listed several prominent figures in the tech space who have been victimized in similar ways. Musk’s behaviour—getting into fights, chasing people down, and harassing them—seems entirely in character.
Jacobsen: Do you have examples of Musk acknowledging this kind of behaviour?
O’Dowd: He’s made some chilling statements. One of his tweets reads, “There is a large graveyard full of my enemies.” Another says, “I don’t start fights, but I always finish them.” These are classic mafia-don-style threats, and they reflect his approach to conflict.
Jacobsen: Is it true that Tesla has been involved in hundreds of lawsuits ranging from alleged fraud to labour disputes?
O’Dowd: Yes, I believe that’s true. I don’t have an exact count, but Tesla has been sued for fraud, labour disputes, safety issues, and other issues. The number of lawsuits is likely staggering.
Jacobsen: How do Elon Musk’s political affiliations, along with customers’ discomfort with some of these perceived or actual affiliations, impact Tesla’s image and, therefore, its sales? We discussed this earlier, but I’d like to explore it further.
O’Dowd: It’s clear that the people most likely to buy an electric car are typically liberals, environmentally conscious individuals, and those concerned about climate change. That’s been the core demographic. These customers wanted an alternative to gas-powered vehicles. When Elon Musk delivered an electric car, they lined up to buy it and were happy with their purchases.
But now, Musk’s recent opinions—opinions he’s been moderately open about—are creating friction. For example, he has said publicly that he voted for Biden and was a Democrat, supporting environmental causes and the reduction of CO₂ emissions. But recently, he’s made comments that contradict those earlier positions.
Jacobsen: What kind of comments?
O’Dowd: He’s said things like, “We shouldn’t be so hard on oil and gas companies because without them, we’d be doomed.” He’s also pointed out that most electricity used to power electric cars comes from the electric grid, which still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Essentially, he’s suggesting that if everyone switched to electric vehicles tomorrow, the grid wouldn’t be able to handle the demand. We’d need to build many more power plants—many of which would still burn fossil fuels.
These comments represent a shift in his public stance, and they’ve alienated many of his earlier supporters. The people who once saw him as a champion of environmentalism are now questioning his motives and direction. Some are saying, “I don’t recognize this guy anymore. I don’t support anything he’s doing.”
Jacobsen: Twitter is another factor that’s caused controversy.
O’Dowd: The acquisition caused much backlash when he bought Twitter, but let’s set that aside for now. He fired half the staff on day two—or shortly after taking over. There couldn’t have been enough time to do any meaningful analysis to determine who should stay and who should go.
Typically, a manager would take at least a day or two to review team structures, evaluate performance, and decide who to retain. Musk didn’t bother. He sent an email to the entire staff with two options: Check the first box to agree to work 80 hours a week, be “super hardcore,” and spend at least 40 hours a week in the office. Check the second box to accept a three-month severance package and leave the company.
Thousands of employees were fired this way without any real review or evaluation. Within a few months, Musk cut 75% of Twitter’s workforce.
Jacobsen: That’s a staggering number.
O’Dowd: It is. And what’s interesting is that he made these drastic cuts so quickly, without regard for the platform’s long-term implications or immediate functionality. It wasn’t just controversial—it was unprecedented.
Jacobsen: How did Elon Musk make those decisions and implement such drastic changes on Twitter?
O’Dowd: It’s interesting. There’s a theory supported by some recent evidence: Musk may have relied heavily on employees with H-1B visas or those on green card pathways because they couldn’t leave.
Here’s how it works: If someone is on an H-1B visa or in the green card process leaves their company—whether by quitting or being fired—they must start over. They need to find another company willing to sponsor them, fill out all the paperwork again, and reset the clock on a process that takes three to five years. Essentially, they’re stuck.
The theory is that Musk rebuilt Twitter around these employees because they didn’t have the option to leave. When he told them to work 80 hours a week, they responded, “I’ll do it until I get my green card, and then I can quit.” They were too invested in the process to walk away, so they had no choice but to comply.
Jacobsen: That’s a pretty grim strategy.
O’Dowd: It is. This approach is in stark contrast to how Twitter used to operate. Before Musk, Twitter focused on making employees as comfortable as possible—offering generous time off, flexible work conditions, and various perks. Musk eliminated all of that within days.
It was a complete cultural overhaul, similar to Donald Trump’s issuing executive orders. Musk essentially rewrote Twitter’s playbook, cutting perks, firing thousands, and demanding extreme work hours. Despite widespread complaints and staff departures, the company is still alive, but the workplace culture is now unrecognizable.
Jacobsen: It reflects his broader, “brutal” approach to leadership.
O’Dowd: This “brutal” approach isn’t limited to Twitter. Tesla has faced significant labour issues, including sexual harassment allegations. Musk has made some telling statements about lawsuits. At two different times, he’s said something like this: “We would never settle if we were not guilty, and we would always settle if we were guilty.”
Jacobsen: That’s quite an admission.
O’Dowd: It is. By Musk’s logic, if Tesla settles a case, it implies guilt. Take, for example, the case involving a private jet flight attendant who alleged Musk asked for a sexual massage after a regular massage. She claimed he offered her a horse in return. Tesla ended up settling the case.
Jacobsen: And people pointed to his earlier statement, right?
O’Dowd: Many people concluded, “Well, if Musk says they’d never settle unless they were guilty, then settling this case makes them look guilty.” Whether or not that’s the whole story, it certainly doesn’t help Tesla’s image.
Jacobsen: Based on Musk’s statements, if Tesla wanted to avoid the appearance of guilt, they would need to fight lawsuits to the end instead of settling. But Tesla has faced numerous complaints.
O’Dowd: There have been countless complaints, particularly about harassment. There are also ongoing lawsuits related to racial discrimination, and if you read those complaints, they’re horrifying. It’s like reading about 1950s Alabama or 1980s apartheid. I’m serious—you need to read them.
Jacobsen: That bad?
O’Dowd: Yes. State-level and federal complaints have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The allegations are shocking, and the cases are still ongoing. It’s been years, and nothing has been fully resolved yet.
Jacobsen: What about data privacy concerns? In 2023, there were lawsuits about Tesla employees allegedly sharing sensitive videos and images captured by customers’ car cameras. Do you have any reflections on this issue?
O’Dowd: Yes, those reports are true. Tesla vehicles have eight cameras, which are always recording. The company can turn those cameras on at any time. Employees had access to the footage, and when they found something they thought was “fun” or “interesting,” they shared it internally.
Jacobsen: What kind of footage are we talking about?
O’Dowd: It ranged from bizarre to deeply invasive. For example, there were videos of people having sex in their garages or even inside their cars. There were also videos capturing private conversations and other personal moments. Because the cameras always record in all directions, they also pick up nearby activities, like people walking or interacting near the car.
In some cases, the footage included horrific car crashes—sometimes not involving the Tesla itself, but incidents the Tesla’s cameras witnessed. Employees reportedly shared videos of these crashes, including those where people died. These videos circulated internally within Tesla, though I don’t recall if there were allegations of employees sharing them outside the company.
Jacobsen: That’s a serious breach of privacy.
O’Dowd: The fact that employees had access to such sensitive and personal footage—and could share it casually—raises major concerns about internal controls and data privacy at Tesla.
Putting eight cameras on your car is a problem—someone is always watching. In China, Teslas were restricted from certain government buildings because officials expressed security concerns that the vehicles’ external cameras could be used for surveillance. The Chinese government, citing national security risks, decided to limit Tesla vehicles near sensitive sites.
Jacobsen: Many ambitious or overhyped targets and delivery dates often fail to be met. Based on your analysis and expertise, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) is the quintessential example. However, there have also been significant delays in Model 3 production and solar-powered Superchargers. Specifically, in terms of marketing and business ethics—what are your thoughts?
O’Dowd: Yes, Tesla has missed many deadlines. The solar-powered Superchargers are a good example. Initially, Musk claimed they would be implemented. However, people pointed out that using electricity from the grid still meant relying on fossil fuels, which undermined the environmental benefit. In response, Musk stated, “No, no, no. We’re going to use solar panels to charge at the Superchargers.” However, only a handful of Supercharger locations have been equipped with solar panels, and they generate a fraction of the required energy.
A large solar array would be necessary to fully power a Supercharger station, likely requiring an acre or more of panels to provide sufficient energy. Thus, the promise of widespread solar-powered Superchargers was significantly overstated.
Another example is Tesla’s solar roof. This is a somewhat complex story, but SolarCity—a company in which Elon Musk was the largest shareholder—was struggling financially. His cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive, were running a business that was losing money on solar panel installations. The company was on the verge of collapse, which would have reflected poorly on Musk. To prevent this, Tesla acquired SolarCity in 2016, a controversial move among investors, as it bailed out a financially unstable company.
To promote the concept of Tesla’s solar roof, Musk staged a demonstration on the set of Desperate Housewives at Universal Studios. The event showcased what appeared to be functioning solar roof tiles. Still, later reports suggested that the display tiles were not operational. The idea was to create roofing materials integrated with solar cells, eliminating the need for traditional panels mounted on top of roofs. While Tesla does sell solar roof tiles, their production and installation have been slow, with significant challenges in scaling the technology.
So you didn’t have to have a roof and then put solar panels on it. Instead, you tiled the roof with these solar tiles, which were supposed to be cheaper, faster, and revolutionary.
When Musk inspected the prototype, he told them to build a solar roof, but they had no idea what he was talking about. They improvised something hastily, and when he saw it, he said, “This looks terrible. You can’t put this on a roof.” Aesthetics are important to him, so he immediately rejected it.
He then instructed his team to fabricate something entirely fake—ceramic tiles with no solar capability whatsoever—no wires, no photovoltaic cells, nothing. These were just ceramic tiles in various interesting colors. He ordered the entire Desperate Housewives set—six houses or so—to be reroofed with these fake tiles to showcase his “great new solar roof” concept, which he claimed would revolutionize solar installations worldwide.
Musk announced that Tesla would produce 5,000 of these per week or some other exaggerated number. He invited the press—all the business and technology media—and unveiled his big revelation. He declared, “Look at these houses. These are the solar panels of the future.” The media ran with it, publishing glowing stories about how this would change the world.
But all the roofs were fake. The solar panels were fake—completely. That entire event is documented in Elon Musk, the biography by Walter Isaacson. There’s a whole section in the book that covers this. The entire thing was fabricated.
When Musk ordered the tiles to be installed, his team did not follow his instructions blindly. Instead, they installed a single roof with real prototype solar tiles—the ones they were actually working on. But when Musk arrived for the inspection before the event, he looked at them and said, “What the hell is this? These look terrible.” When told they were the real solar tiles, he ordered them removed immediately and replaced with fake ones.
So he knowingly swapped out non-functional prototypes—at least an attempt at a real product—for completely fake tiles for showmanship. It’s the same pattern with Tesla’s humanoid robot, Optimus. At its unveiling, people in robot suits performed behind Musk. It was totally staged.
That’s how he operates. Every demo is a fake.
I almost forgot—the Cybertruck. I have to say, when I first saw it, the demonstration was impressive. Musk wanted to race a Porsche 911 against the Cybertruck. A real sports car versus an electric pickup—who would win? So, he set it up, filmed the whole thing, and put on a big show.
The surprising part came when the Cybertruck beat the Porsche in a quarter-mile race. It looked incredible. Then, the camera panned out, and the big reveal happened—the Porsche 911 was towing another Porsche 911. That’s right. A Cybertruck towing another vehicle supposedly beat a standalone Porsche 911 in a drag race. It was an impressive stunt, and it got press coverage worldwide. People were calling the Cybertruck revolutionary.
But then the details started coming out. First, the Porsche 911 they used was reportedly one of the cheapest, weakest models available. Second, Musk claimed it was a quarter-mile race, but it wasn’t—it was an eighth-mile. Once people analyzed the footage and reconstructed the distance, they realized the deception. What is the reason for calling it a “quarter-mile”? Because that’s the standard measure for drag racing. An eighth mile isn’t the same, but he had to claim to add legitimacy.
Why shorten the race? Because in a full quarter-mile, the Cybertruck loses. They must have tested it and realized it couldn’t beat the Porsche over that distance. So, they adjusted the race to an eighth mile—just enough for the Cybertruck to pull ahead while towing. It was completely misleading. Later, real Porsche 911s, driven properly, easily outperformed the Cybertruck in actual drag races. The entire thing was a staged marketing stunt designed to make the Cybertruck look like the fastest truck on the planet.
Then there was another fake test—a Cybertruck versus a Ford F-150 in a tug-of-war. They showed the Cybertruck dragging the F-150 backward as if it were effortlessly superior. However, there was a major problem: Tesla used a two-wheel-drive F-150 against a four-wheel-drive Cybertruck. Once someone brought in a proper four-wheel-drive F-150 for the same test, it outmatched the Cybertruck. Again, this is another staged demo—completely misleading.
Everything was fake—all fake.
Then you have 2016—the infamous Full Self-Driving (FSD) announcement. Elon Musk tweeted, “Here’s a video of a Tesla driving itself from a house to an office—no human input—navigating surface streets, highways, and even parking itself.” The video made it look like FSD was already a reality.
Years later, during a lawsuit, the head of Tesla’s FSD engineering was put under oath in a deposition. He was asked about that video. His response? The test Tesla used to film the video crashed into a fence. They had to cut that footage out.
The car wasn’t truly driving itself—it was a carefully curated and edited presentation. They had staged the entire thing to make it appear functional, even though the technology wasn’t there.
They did dozens and dozens of runs. They took clips where the system didn’t fail, cut out the mistakes, and pieced together a fake drive that looked like the car could go autonomously from Point A to Point B. They removed all the parts where it failed, used camera cuts to hide errors, and manufactured the illusion that Full Self-Driving (FSD) was fully operational.
Seven years later, we tried the same thing. Within 100 yards, the car got stuck on the sidewalk. It decided to drive up the curb, got stuck, and failed repeatedly. There was no way the technology worked as advertised in that original video. It was a complete lie.
Even the head of Tesla’s own FSD engineering team later admitted it. Musk had called him and said, “I want a video of how great Full Self-Driving will be someday. I know it doesn’t do everything today—we’re fixing that—but I want a video of what it will look like in the future.”
So, the engineers put together what they thought was a concept video—a vision of the technology’s potential. But when Musk got it, he released it as reality, claiming this was what FSD could already do. The engineers had been misled, thinking they were making a prototype demo, and Musk sold it as a finished product. The entire thing was a fraud.
That was Full Self-Driving. Then there was the robot, the solar roofs, the Cybertruck tug-of-war, the quarter-mile race, and Optimus folding a shirt.
That was a good one. Musk posted a video of Optimus, the humanoid robot, folding a shirt. The idea was that these robots could eventually work as household assistants—cleaning, organizing, and doing chores. The video made it look like Tesla had built a breakthrough AI-powered robot capable of delicate, precise tasks.
Then, people took a closer look. Someone noticed a human hand in the lower-left corner of the frame, moving in perfect sync with Optimus. They had put a guy in a haptic suit, directly controlling the robot’s movements in real-time. Optimus wasn’t folding the shirt—the human was. The entire demonstration was staged—another complete fake.
Everything Musk does is fake. Every major product launch includes some misleading demo. It’s incredible. Every time Tesla unveils something new, it looks groundbreaking—until you realize it doesn’t work as shown.
And yet, he’s still standing. How many SEC violations is this? How many consumer fraud cases? He tells people that the product exists, that it works today, and that they can buy it now. Customers pay, and then—nothing. None of it works as promised. It’s astonishing.
And that’s not even getting into the other problems—like allegations of workplace discrimination and safety violations.
Dan O’Dowd is a world-renowned expert in developing software that is both fail-proof and impenetrable to hackers. His work underpins some of the most critical technological advancements in defense and aerospace, including the secure operating systems for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets, the Boeing B-1B intercontinental nuclear bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Since graduating from the California Institute of Technology in 1976, O’Dowd has been at the forefront of designing safety-critical systems and unhackable software, shaping the standards of modern cybersecurity over four decades.
In this conversation, O’Dowd takes aim at Elon Musk, dissecting the billionaire’s lofty promises and self-mythologizing. Biographers Walter Isaacson and Ashlee Vance have described Musk’s empathy as “warped”—a characterization O’Dowd expands on, arguing that Musk’s ambitions, from Mars colonization to Tesla’s vision for sustainable transportation and AI dominance, are less about innovation and more about marketing spectacle. He critiques Musk’s pattern of revisionist history, reckless leadership, and a track record of grand promises that frequently go unfulfilled—such as Tesla’s never-realized affordable car and SpaceX’s ongoing struggles.
O’Dowd also challenges Musk’s self-proclaimed Asperger’s diagnosis, arguing that it serves as a convenient excuse for erratic behavior rather than a genuine explanation. He draws comparisons between Musk and cult-like figures such as Keith Raniere, suggesting that Musk’s public persona is carefully crafted to mask his true motivations: power, control, and self-enrichment.
(via CNN)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Regarding empathy, Walter Isaacson has outright stated that Musk lacks it. Ashlee Vance, another biographer who spent three years studying Musk’s life, arrived at a similar conclusion. At the time of his research, Vance was a veteran journalist for Bloomberg Businessweek, and in 2015, he published Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future. His assessment? Musk’s sense of empathy is, at best, distorted—if it exists at all.
Vance put it this way: “Elon has the weirdest empathy of anyone I’ve ever encountered. He doesn’t have a lot of interpersonal empathy, but he has a lot of empathy for humanity.”
That statement alone is telling. If someone lacks interpersonal empathy—true, human-to-human emotional connection—can they really be considered empathetic? What they seem to possess instead is cognitive empathy: an intellectual understanding of emotions rather than a genuine emotional experience of them.
This distinction is one I’ve heard repeatedly from experts on narcissism and psychopathy. Figures like Musk don’t experience emotions the way most people do; they recognize how emotions function, but only in a detached, strategic sense.
When Musk speaks of “humanity,” he is speaking in abstraction, not in terms of individuals. And here’s the problem: only individuals exist. The notion of “empathy for mankind” is, in reality, not empathy at all.
Dan O’Dowd: It’s a sales pitch—a marketing tool to make his vision sound inspiring enough for people to join his cause. And that’s the key: it’s always about him being in charge. He doesn’t care about humanity—unless he’s running it. That’s the only condition under which he’s invested.
And we’re not the only ones who see this. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, once said: “Elon wants the world to be saved—but only if he can be the one to save it.” That line stuck with me because it’s completely true.
I don’t think Musk experiences sympathy at all, and in some ways, that’s one of his greatest strengths. He doesn’t care about hurting people or the destruction he leaves behind. If you get in his way, he’ll run you over without a second thought. You are not a person to him. You are an obstacle that needs to be removed.
And this is where I reject the idea that Musk’s behaviour is due to Asperger’s or autism. That’s just another layer of fiction he’s built around himself. Musk has claimed to be on the spectrum. Still, there is nothing in his personality that actually aligns with autistic traits. People with autism often struggle with social cues and norms. Still, they are also deeply loyal, morally driven, and emotionally intense. They don’t manipulate people for sport. They don’t fabricate realities to maintain control. They don’t ruthlessly discard people the moment they are no longer useful.
What Musk exhibits is not autism. It’s unchecked narcissism, sociopathy, and a pathological inability to care about anyone but himself. The idea that he’s autistic is just another lie—another excuse—to explain away his callousness and cruelty.
Musk’s claim of Asperger’s is just another one of his excuses—a convenient way to justify his erratic behaviour and impulsive decisions. It gives him something to fall back on whenever he does something insane or socially inappropriate. He can say, “Oh, well, I have a diagnosis, so I sometimes say crazy things and act in funny ways. It’s a condition—I can’t help it.” But that’s not what’s really happening.
The reality is that Musk never developed self-control. He never developed the internal mechanisms that most adults do. Everything about his behaviour suggests he is stuck at 13 years old. Everything is new and exciting, and everything is about instant gratification. He never learned about the real consequences of life. He has been sheltered in a way that most 13-year-olds are sheltered, but what happens between ages 13 and 18 for most people? They grow up. They face the real world. They learn that actions have consequences.
But Musk never had that moment. He never went through that transition. He has been frozen at that stage of development ever since. That’s my personal belief—of course, I don’t have a medical test for it, nor does he. But his supposed Asperger’s diagnosis? It’s another convenient excuse to deflect accountability and say, “Oh, I can’t help it. That’s just my condition.” When, in reality, it’s just his lack of self-control.
Elon Musk and Argentine President Javier Milei. (Gage Skidmore)
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss Musk’s so-called “visionary” ideas. For years, he has championed grand ambitions—making humanity a multi-planetary species, carrying the light of human consciousness into the cosmos, and expanding civilization beyond Earth. To his credit, he has remained consistent in promoting these ideals.
On the surface, it all sounds poetic, almost lyrical—language designed to inspire. But what is the true function of these statements? Are they genuine aspirations, or do they serve another purpose? Are they, in the end, just another tool of manipulation, carefully crafted to rally people behind him?
O’Dowd: The answer is obvious. These visions are completely fabricated. Some are ripped straight from science fiction books and movies that Musk read as a kid. Others are just marketing slogans designed to give people “precedents and superlatives,” as he puts it, to motivate them. But none of them hold up under any level of scrutiny.
Take the Mars Colony idea—a million people on Mars. It’s preposterous. No serious planetary scientist thinks this is remotely feasible. Mars has no oxygen, no water, and is freezing cold nearly all the time. These are big problems. You need air and water, and Mars doesn’t have them.
Sure, some of these things could be manufactured—with enormous amounts of electricity. But where does that electricity come from? Unlike Earth, Mars doesn’t have fossil fuels—there were no dinosaurs or trees 300 million years ago that could have turned into oil or coal. So, that’s not an option. Solar power? Good idea—except Mars gets half the solar radiation that Earth does. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it does make things harder.
And then there’s the dust storms. Every so often, Mars gets a planet-wide dust storm that lasts for months or even years. Good luck keeping solar panels running through that. You’d need enormous battery storage—but even on Earth, we don’t have battery technology advanced enough to store months of electricity. And we certainly wouldn’t be able to ship that much battery capacity to Mars.
So now we’re looking at no energy, water, or air. What are these one million people supposed to do? It’s simply impossible. And then you get to the industrial problem. To sustain one million people, you’d need a full industrial civilization—semiconductor factories, plastics factories, concrete production. Oh, and guess what?
Mars doesn’t have concrete.
Concrete is made from limestone, clays, and specific minerals that Mars lacks. So, how exactly do you build anything? And what about metal mining? Sure, there might be metals underground, but we don’t know where they are, we don’t have a way to find them, and we don’t have the equipment to mine them.
It’s absurd.
Then there’s Optimus, the humanoid robot. Musk claimed that Optimus would end poverty and that every person on Earth would have everything they wanted because robots would do all the work. It’s the same nonsense utopia every scammer has sold since dawn. But not everybody can have what Musk has. There isn’t enough material on Earth to give every person a Gulfstream G650 private jet, a mansion, and billions of dollars. The math doesn’t work. It’s logistically impossible.
Then there’s Neuralink—which Musk claimed would cure paralysis and restore sight to blind people. It’s just another Jesus-level miracle he’s selling. The spinal cord repair claim? Completely ridiculous. The restoring vision claim? Utterly unproven. But Musk knows that if he says, “I can make the blind see and the crippled walk,” he’ll get people to throw money at him. It’s a modern version of what revival preachers did in the 19th century—bringing people up on stage, “healing” them and collecting donations.
And then there’s The Boring Company, which is supposed to revolutionize underground transportation. So, what has it actually done?
One tunnel in Las Vegas.
That’s it. And what is this tunnel? It’s just a small underground road where Teslas drive slowly in single file with human drivers. That’s the entire achievement of The Boring Company after ten years.
This is the pattern. The Mars Colony? Fake. Optimus? Fake. Neuralink’s miracle claims? Fake. The Boring Company? Useless. But people keep believing him. They keep giving him money.
Because that’s his real skill. Not building things. Not designing things. Selling dreams.
Musk’s xAI, the so-called cutting-edge AI company that can’t even spell Pennsylvania correctly. And that’s where we are now—none of this makes sense.
And let’s not forget Tesla’s so-called “Secret Master Plan.” In 2006, Musk published what he called the “Secret” Master Plan—which wasn’t actually secret. It was just another gimmick. He laid out a three-step vision for Tesla’s future: Step one – build the Roadster, an expensive sports car, and sell it to rich people. Step two – take those profits and build a mid-range electric car. Step three – use those profits to build a mass-market, affordable electric car.
It sounded like a brilliant long-term plan. Only one problem: It never actually happened.
Yes, Tesla built the Roadster. But Musk didn’t invent it. He didn’t design it. The actual founders of Tesla had already developed the Roadster prototype before Musk entered the picture. He didn’t have the original idea and didn’t do the engineering. But what did happen?
They shipped the Roadster, but they lost a lot of money on it. There were no profits to fund the next step. So what did Tesla do? Did they build an affordable electric car next? No. Instead, they built the Model S, a luxury electric car.
I bought one myself—for $105,000. I was among the first 2,000 buyers. That is not an affordable electric car. Even today, with government incentives, a Model 3 still costs $40,000+. That’s mid-range at best, but it’s not affordable for most people.
And what about Step Three—the truly affordable mass-market electric car? It was cancelled. It’s in Isaacson’s biography. Musk himself admitted it. He has since confirmed that Tesla will not make a low-cost electric car.
Why? Because he can’t make any money off it. That’s why he’s not doing it. Tesla’s whole purpose was supposed to be making electric cars affordable for the masses. That’s how you transition the world to renewable energy for transportation. That’s how you make a real difference. But after 17 years and a trillion-dollar company, Musk has given up on that mission.
Let’s break this down: If only the rich could afford electric cars, how much of a real impact would EVs have on the environment?
If only 10% of the population switches to EVs, that’s only a 10% reduction in emissions—right? No. Because 70% of the electricity grid still runs on fossil fuels. So the actual impact is 3% of 10%—basically nothing.
And the wealthy—the people most likely to buy Teslas—also have the biggest carbon footprints. They fly private jets, own multiple homes, and consume more energy than the average person ever could. So, even if all of them drive EVs, the net impact is minuscule.
This is why Tesla has failed its own mission. Musk was supposed to lead the world toward a sustainable transportation revolution. But instead, he’s abandoning the idea of affordable EVs altogether.
But you know who isn’t giving up? BYD.
BYD just released an $11,000 electric car. That’s an affordable price almost anyone can afford, and it can change the market.
Musk had 17 years and trillions of dollars to do this. He didn’t. BYD did.
If only the upper-class switches to electric cars while everyone else continues driving gasoline-powered vehicles, then we haven’t solved anything. That applies to the U.S., where 70% of Americans still drive gasoline cars, and India, Africa, and the rest of the developing world, where billions rely on traditional fuels. Switching to electric vehicles only works if EVs become cheaper than gas-powered cars—or at least close enough in price to make switching a realistic option for the masses.
However, Musk’s entire strategy has been the opposite. Instead of making affordable electric cars, he focused on luxury EVs. And make no mistake—Teslas are still categorized as luxury vehicles. So what is the point of an electric car company that makes less than 1% of the world’s cars—only to be sold to rich people?
The real purpose of Tesla isn’t to solve climate change—it’s to sell wealthy people a badge of moral superiority. Tesla is a status symbol, a way for the rich to look down on the poor who still drive gas-powered cars and blame them for ruining the planet. But who actually consumes the most energy? The rich. They are the ones who fly private jets, own massive homes, and produce 5–10 times more carbon than the average person.
Tesla gives those same people an indulgence—a way to pretend they’re helping when they are the problem. But by buying a Tesla, they can say, “I’m part of the solution.” And Musk profits off of that guilt. It’s not the poor farmers in India who are destroying the environment. It’s the tech billionaires in Silicon Valley. But buy an electric car, and suddenly, you’re the hero.
And now? Musk has abandoned the very mission that made Tesla famous.
For 17 years, he was celebrated worldwide as a visionary, a humanitarian, and a man paving the way for a greener future. But now? He’s openly saying he won’t build a truly affordable EV. His own employees at Tesla were plotting behind his back to modify the CyberCab into a $25,000 EV—something that could actually bring EVs to the masses. But Musk figured it out.
And what did he do?
He killed it.
Because the real money—the trillion-dollar valuation that keeps Musk at the top of the world—isn’t in low-cost EVs. It’s in the CyberCab RoboTaxi fantasy. That’s what keeps the stock price inflated. That’s what keeps investors dumping billions into Tesla.
So now, after 17 years, he’s saying: “Actually, I’m not going to do the thing I built my entire reputation on. I won’t make EVs accessible to the masses. Because I can’t make enough money off of it.” The mission that made him beloved, worshipped, and called a humanitarian? It’s over. The only thing that matters to him now is the RoboTaxi scheme, which keeps him the richest man in the world.
(Dawn Project)
Jacobsen: What about the claims of founding?
O’Dowd: Musk did not found Tesla. Legally, he won the right to call himself a co-founder—but only after suing the actual founders into financial ruin. The original Tesla team had already built a Roadster prototype before Musk even joined the company. He did not create the idea, engineer the product, or start the company. He invested $6 million and took over.
Same story with Twitter—he didn’t find it; he bought it.
The Boring Company and Neuralink? Those were his projects.
SpaceX? That’s one company where he was the founder—so credit where it’s due.
But here’s the thing—it shouldn’t even matter. Whether or not he founded Tesla is irrelevant in the grand scheme. It matters to Musk, though, because to him, image is everything. His entire brand is built on being the “genius founder.”
Jacobsen: So, what good can we say about Musk?
O’Dowd: He did play a role in accelerating the EV industry, that’s true. But it wasn’t because of his engineering brilliance—it was because he forced the auto industry to take EVs seriously.
That’s the best you can say about him. He didn’t invent EVs. He didn’t create Tesla. He didn’t make EVs accessible. But he did push the industry forward. But now? He’s walking away from even that accomplishment.
When I bought a Roadster, it was the only electric vehicle on the market. There were no other EVs available to buy. So, in that sense, Musk did build something meaningful. And I’ve thanked him for that—I even wrote an official thank-you note, saying what a great idea it was.
It’s given me 15 years of great entertainment. I drive that car every day, even in the middle of January. I take it through the hills, across the valleys, along the ocean, and into my office. It’s fantastic. I love my Roadster, and I won’t give it up. Actually, I have five Roadsters now—I forgot to mention that. Oops.
So, credit where it’s due—the Roadster was great. And I’ve got to say, the Model S was pretty darn good too. It was electric. It worked. And it still works. We still have our Model S—my wife drives it every day. After 13 years, it’s still going strong. That’s not bad. It’s a nice car—good size, range, solid build. It was a well-designed EV.
But Tesla never made money on it. It was too expensive, and not enough people could afford one. Then there’s the Model X—which I don’t think was a good product. And let’s talk about those Falcon Wing doors—that was pure Musk. You can tell that was one of his stupid ideas. And it never worked properly. It was a gimmick, not a practical feature.
Now, let’s talk about Starlink. It has been useful—once. Except for the one time we needed it, it dropped out. So, yes, that happened. It’s also expensive. And the problem with Starlink? It doesn’t scale well. They’re launching massive amounts of satellites, but they can’t effectively support large numbers of users. We’ll see what happens with Starlink in the long term, but I’m not convinced it’s a sustainable business model.
And then there’s Starship. That thing keeps blowing up. Seven launches—seven explosions. That’s his way of pushing forward with SpaceX, but at this point, it’s trial and error—with many errors.
So, let’s break this down.
Musk isn’t going to fulfill Tesla’s original mission of making affordable EVs for the masses.
For SpaceX, he thinks the key to getting to Mars is to build a Starship—but so far, it has failed.
And then you hear people say, “Musk is a genius because he built a rocket company.” But did he really? No, he didn’t invent the technology. He didn’t design the rockets. What he did do was raise the money. He sucked in $20 billion in funding. And that is something.
But then you have to ask—if you gave someone else $20 billion, could they also build a rocket company?
We landed on the moon before Elon Musk was even born. I watched it happen—well, on TV, but still, it happened more than 50 years ago. We had a rocket called the Saturn V, capable of lifting over 100 tons into space. When Musk first proposed Starship, the original design was supposed to lift 300 tons—then that number dropped to 150—and now? It’s down to around 100.
Jacobsen: So what, exactly, is Musk doing that hasn’t been done before?
O’Dowd: The Apollo engineers built their rockets with slide rules and analog computers. They didn’t have AI, supercomputers, or Musk’s $20 billion war chest. And yet, they did it. Musk, meanwhile, is still blowing up prototypes.
Let’s talk about Tesla’s real founders because Musk’s legal title as “co-founder” does not tell the full story.
Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the real founders of Tesla. Musk did not create Tesla. But through legal settlements, Musk secured the right to call himself a co-founder—even though Tesla already had a prototype Roadster before he got involved.
So let’s be clear: Technically? Musk is legally a co-founder—because a court settlement allowed him to claim that title. Chronologically? He is not a real founder.
And Martin Eberhard has never held back his opinion on Musk. In an interview, he said that Musk was one of the biggest assholes he had ever worked with. And this wasn’t coming from some random critic but from one of the actual Tesla founders. This guy has worked with many difficult people in Silicon Valley. That was his paraphrased, direct opinion of Musk.
Jacobsen: And what about the argument that Musk “works his ass off” to save companies?
O’Dowd: Some people—including those who worked with him—claim that sometimes, he does. In his biography, Walter Isaacson describes this phenomenon as “Demon Mode.” Musk goes into a hyper-focused, problem-solving frenzy when things fall apart, pushing everyone around him to the limit. Isaacson might have quoted Kimbal Musk or one of Musk’s close associates when describing this state.
But here’s the thing—Demon Mode isn’t genius. It’s panic-driven chaos. It’s not a sign of great leadership—it’s a sign of a leader who lets everything spiral out of control, only to throw himself into the fire to put out the blaze he helped create.
There’s a difference between being a great strategist and a reckless gambler who sometimes gets lucky. So yes—Musk does have moments where he grinds, works, and pushes through challenges. But they aren’t a sign of discipline or stability—they’re signs of desperation and damage control.
Because the truth is, he doesn’t run companies well. He throws them into chaos, makes huge promises, and only occasionally pulls off a victory. And that’s why he’s been successful. Because when you don’t care about rules, honesty, or people, you can play the game differently than everyone else.
And if you get enough money, you can keep betting big until something works.
Jacobsen: Did Musk find OpenAI, or was he just an early investor?
O’Dowd: He was an early investor and sat on the board. But did he find it? Well, he certainly claims to be the reason OpenAI exists. That’s part of his usual revisionist history—whenever something succeeds, he inserts himself into the origin story.
When OpenAI needed funding, Musk helped fund the project. According to The Economic Times, he was listed as one of the co-founders when OpenAI was launched in 2015. But if you look at more reliable sources, like Euronews or
According to Wikipedia, the founding team included 12 people: Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever, and others.
So yes, Musk was technically a co-founder but not the key operator. He was involved early, put in money, and left the organization when things didn’t go how he wanted. And now? He spends his time attacking OpenAI, claiming it has betrayed its original mission—even though he wasn’t there to build it out.
And that’s a pattern with Musk—being in and out of everything.
The Boring Company—did he find that? Yes. But did it go anywhere? No. It’s still operating but has only drilled one tunnel in Las Vegas and a short tunnel outside the Tesla factory in Texas. That’s it. It was supposed to revolutionize urban traffic but never built a high-speed tunnel system in Los Angeles, the East Coast, or anywhere else.
X (Twitter)? He didn’t find it—he bought it. Neuralink? Co-founder. Zip2? Co-founder. PayPal? Co-founder.
The Musk Foundation? Well, that’s just a personal fund that builds houses for him.
Jacobsen: Wait—didn’t Musk claim he had no houses?
O’Dowd: Yes, he claimed he sold all his homes. But here’s the real reason he sold his properties: tax avoidance.
Musk was holding onto $40 billion in stock options. If he cashed them in while living in California, the state would tax him 13%—over $5 billion in taxes. So what did he do? He moved to Texas, a state with no income tax.
However, California has strict tax rules—they determine residency based on where you own property, where you spend time, and even whether you have a country club membership. If Musk had kept his house in California, the state could have claimed he was still a resident and taxed him accordingly. So, to avoid paying billions in taxes, he sold everything and moved to Texas before cashing out his stock.
So when he pretends he lives in a tiny rented house, it’s not because he’s a minimalist—he needed to ditch his California residency to avoid taxes.
That’s the real story.
So, Musk had to sell all his houses quickly—he had five or six of them and offloaded them as quickly as possible. Why? Because he needed to get out of California before cashing out his stock options. He had to be physically in Texas before executing the sale, or California would take 13% of his $40 billion payout—$5 billion in taxes he was trying to avoid.
That’s the real reason Musk sold his house and moved to Texas. But what did he say at the time? He framed it as some philosophical awakening, claiming he no longer wanted material attachments, houses slowed him down, and he wanted to be free. That was the public narrative. But the real story was simple: It was a business decision to escape California taxes.
Jacobsen: I’ve heard that lie before. After years of interviewing members of high-IQ societies and elite circles, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern. There’s always the carefully curated public face—a façade of genius, altruism, or self-sacrifice. But beneath it? The real game is power, control, and self-enrichment.
Take Keith Raniere, for example. Have you heard of NXIVM or DOS?
What began as a multi-level marketing scheme in the U.S. eventually morphed into a sex cult—one that ensnared powerful and wealthy individuals. Raniere managed to con $150 million from the Bronfman sisters, heirs to the Seagram fortune, by convincing them he was a brilliant philosopher. He even manipulated his way into the Guinness Book of World Records for having one of the highest recorded IQs—an accolade that, at the time, was essentially self-registerable.
But he wasn’t a genius. He lost that $150 million in the stock market because he had no idea what he was doing. Meanwhile, he was secretly running DOS—a group whose name, in Latin, means “master over slave.” Disguised as a women’s empowerment movement, DOS functioned as a recruitment pipeline, ultimately leading women into sexual servitude to Raniere.
And here’s where the parallel to Musk emerges. Raniere meticulously cultivated an image of renunciation—a thinker above material desires, a philosopher unburdened by the trivialities of wealth or power. He presented himself as an ascetic, someone guided by ethics and higher purpose. And yet, behind closed doors, he was indulging in total control, coercing his followers, including celebrities like Smallville actress Allison Mack, into submission.
His downfall? Branding. Quite literally. His followers were burned—marked near their groins with his initials, as if they were cattle. That moment shattered the illusion. It led to his arrest, prosecution, and a prison sentence of over a century.
The pattern is clear. The public persona and the hidden reality rarely align.
O’Dowd: Musk pretended to be homeless—but it was just a legal and financial move. He pretends to be a humanitarian, but his actions contradict everything he stands for.
To avoid any professional repercussions, the interviewee has chosen to remain anonymous. In this conversation, ‘Scientist,’ a leading researcher, examines the growing politicization and suppression of science. He argues that governments are increasingly manipulating scientific discourse to control narratives, particularly on issues like climate change and public health.
The discussion delves into the troubling ways institutions such as the NIH and NSF are being defunded or staffed with political loyalists, threatening the integrity of scientific research. The ‘Scientist’ also draws historical parallels, likening these developments to Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, where ideology trumped empirical evidence with disastrous consequences.
Beyond the scientific realm, the conversation touches on broader societal concerns, including attacks on women’s rights and the erosion of independent thought. At its core, this interview underscores the urgent need to defend scientific integrity against political interference.
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with anti-science sycophants.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the most pressing concerns regarding the crackdown on scientists who speak out, as well as the broader assault on science as a discipline—one that relies on government funding, demands highly trained professionals, and depends on career researchers who spend decades building institutions and advancing knowledge?
Scientist: I think the problem is broader—it is fundamentally a crackdown on any center of independent thought. In the current political climate, much revolves around control.
Those in power want to control the narrative. They perceive academics as people who believe they have the freedom to think independently and to express their findings openly. This means that academic conclusions do not always align with the preferred narratives of those in power.
This issue most obviously affects scholars in the humanities, but it also impacts scientists. There are clear cases, such as the climate crisis and greenhouse gas emissions. Every reputable climate scientist agrees that climate change is occurring and is driven by human activity, particularly the release of greenhouse gases.
The only way to mitigate this while maintaining our standard of living is to transition away from fossil fuels. However, this is an inconvenient truth for many industries and political entities. As a result, scientists are often discredited through orchestrated misinformation campaigns amplified by compliant media outlets.
This ultimately undermines trust in the scientific process, turning discussions that should be rooted in empirical evidence into political debates. When scientific findings become politicized, people retreat into ideological camps rather than objectively evaluate the evidence.
One of science’s fundamental lessons is that we must continuously assess situations as new information becomes available. We must make the best possible judgments based on the available evidence. However, this process is increasingly being replaced by a system where people cling to preconceived beliefs and promote arguments that serve their ideological interests, regardless of evidence. In doing so, they discourage genuine inquiry and suppress the pursuit of knowledge.
This, at its core, is an attack on the scientific method.
Jacobsen: A long-standing example of this phenomenon in North America is the persistent effort to insert creationism and intelligent design into school curricula.
Despite clear legal precedents barring these concepts from science classrooms, certain religious groups—primarily evangelical Protestant activists, along with some Catholic factions—continue to push for their reintroduction. These efforts typically sidestep peer review and established scientific discourse, instead relying on political maneuvering and legal challenges. When these challenges inevitably fail in court, activists adapt their strategies and try again, seeking new avenues to influence educational policy.
Scientist: I don’t think they care if they lose the lawsuits. Their goal isn’t necessarily to win but to amplify their message. Legal battles take years, and public attention has moved on by the time a case is resolved.
Most people only remember the initial controversy. If that controversy reinforces their existing worldview, they internalize it. When the courts ultimately rule against creationism, many don’t notice—or they dismiss the ruling as biased. This cycle allows misinformation to persist, even in the face of overwhelming scientific and legal opposition.
Jacobsen: How does this type of religiously motivated activism compare to government-led efforts to suppress scientific discourse? What distinguishes grassroots campaigns—such as creationist movements—from broader, state-driven suppression of scientific research?
Scientist: Well, there’s an issue of power. Fundamentalist Christian groups are just one among many factions vying for influence. In an open marketplace of ideas, people can debate, discuss, and try to persuade others. Some will be convinced, while many will reject their arguments.
Intellectual progress generally works this way, including in science. Scientists propose different hypotheses, test them, and debate their merits. What makes the current situation different is the issue of power.
Suppose a government adopts a rigid ideological position and enforces it without regard for scientific reasoning. In that case, the issue is no longer about debate. The enforcement of such views is often based on deeply held emotional or ideological convictions, rather than an objective evaluation of evidence.
In these cases, the primary goal is not societal improvement but the consolidation of power and control. The belief driving these actions is that society should conform to a specific worldview that the ruling elite deems correct.
In extreme cases, this power dynamic is purely about self-interest—where the wealthy and powerful seek to maintain their status and prevent challenges to their authority. The precise nature of this power structure varies across different political systems.
For instance, in China, the government operates under an authoritarian model. While power and wealth are concentrated at the top, the ruling party still maintains that its policies serve the broader population.
In contrast, this justification is largely absent in the United States. Policies increasingly prioritize economic redistribution from the lower and middle classes to the wealthiest individuals.
Take tariffs, for example. They are often presented as protective economic measures, but in practice, they are highly regressive. Tariffs increase costs for everyone, and much of their revenue is channelled toward tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
At the same time, political rhetoric around immigration is often used as a distraction—a way to shift public attention away from economic policies that ultimately transfer wealth upwards.
Trump’s COVID response was guided by the wildly respected Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Jacobsen: What about individuals whose livelihoods are directly affected by these policies? When institutions face funding cuts, freezes, or mass layoffs, how do those in the scientific community respond?
Scientist: Yeah, well, this is extraordinary. In the United States, one of the most striking developments is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being directed by someone who actively seeks to discourage childhood vaccination.
Vaccination of children and eradicating smallpox, polio, and diphtheria was one of the most significant advancements in reducing child mortality in the 20th century. Rolling back these efforts would be catastrophic, yet there are indications that such policies may be enacted purely based on political ideology.
It is not entirely clear what will happen yet, but the individual appointed to lead the NIH has openly stated his desire to scale back vaccination programs. Furthermore, initial actions have involved removing key officials responsible for promoting these public health initiatives.
Jacobsen: What about the individuals on the ground doing the work–the ones who still have jobs and are responsible for the fundamental operations of health and science agencies?
Scientist: Well, sure. The impact is already being felt. For example, Elon Musk’s extra-congressional influence has been used to push for a reduction in federal bureaucracy, leading to significant layoffs.
This includes essential personnel, such as program managers at the National Science Foundation (NSF), whose primary responsibility is to ensure that research funding is distributed as fairly and effectively as possible. Many of these individuals have already been dismissed.
The long-term consequences of these actions remain uncertain, but with fewer staff available to administer NSF funding, the allocation process will become significantly more challenging. This may be a prelude to a broader NSF budget reduction.
Jacobsen: Why are these funding programs being targeted? Why are agencies like the NIH and NSF under attack while other entities—such as the Department of Defense, where Elon Musk holds contracts—remain largely untouched?
Scientist: Fundamentally, this is about dismantling apolitical federal agencies. Many agencies, including those overseeing scientific research and public health, were established to operate above partisan politics.
These institutions were built to function independently of shifting political administrations, ensuring that federal funds are allocated wisely and effectively under congressional oversight. However, this principle of an independent civil service is now under attack.
We repeatedly see that the individuals being fired are responsible for making funding decisions. They are being replaced by political loyalists who align with the current power structure.
Jacobsen: How will this impact the future of scientific research? If the individuals responsible for equitably distributing research funding and maintaining fair systems are being replaced by MAGA loyalists, what does that mean for the direction of science?
Scientist: I don’t know. It’s impossible to predict with certainty. It depends on the extent of their actions.
One clear directive already stated is the exclusion of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) considerations from future funding decisions. I am not part of the U.S. system. However, many North American colleagues feel that DEI criteria have increasingly dominated grant proposals.
Some might welcome a shift toward a model where scientific excellence takes greater precedence over DEI in funding evaluations. However, it remains unclear whether these changes will stop there or extend to other politically motivated decisions.
Political interference seems inevitable in fields such as climate science and public health. The direct impact may be less obvious in disciplines like astronomy, though still possible.
There is also the defence and space research issue, where Elon Musk has an enormous conflict of interest. Notably, independent oversight figures, such as inspectors general—who are meant to operate free from political influence to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest—have all been dismissed. This pattern aligns with fascist governance tactics.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize this widespread restructuring, particularly in relation to Americans’ access to highly sensitive personal information?
Scientist: I’m not American, but that does not provide much reassurance. The corporations with access to this data are transnational.
During Brexit, multiple scandals involved Facebook and Google accessing British records, manipulating public perception, and influencing political outcomes. This issue is not unique to the U.S.—it is happening globally.
With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, we are seeing an exponential increase in the amount of funding directed toward data collection, networking, and cross-referencing massive databases. This can only make the problem worse.
The current political climate in North America is exacerbating the situation. Still, the fundamental issue of mass data collection, regardless of politics, remains deeply concerning.
Jacobsen: What about the situation in Germany with the AfD party and concerns regarding the rise of far-right activism there?
Scientist: The political consensus in Germany remains strong, with roughly 70 to 80 percent of the population solidly aligned with mainstream politics.
However, the far right is becoming increasingly vocal. They dominate the discourse by speaking loudly and persistently, often focusing on anti-immigrant rhetoric.
This pattern is not unique to Germany—it is part of a broader trend seen across multiple Western democracies, where right-wing populist movements use fear and nationalism to gain political traction.
It is quite noticeable that the places where anti-immigrant sentiment is the strongest are often areas with relatively few immigrants. In contrast, cities like Berlin, where immigrants make up a significant portion of the population, tend to be much less anti-immigrant.
This suggests that immigration is being used as a political distraction. Instead of addressing the real economic issues—such as why, despite GDP growth over the past 30 years, only a small fraction of the population has seen a significant rise in income while the lower half remains stagnant—people are being encouraged to blame immigrants.
The core issue here is economic inequality, but immigration is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from these deeper systemic problems.
Jacobsen: How long does building up a research program within an institution take? This might help people understand the magnitude of loss when scientists and researchers are fired or defunded.
Scientist: It depends greatly on the field of research.
For a theoretician, computational resources can be rebuilt relatively quickly if necessary. However, the real issue is human capital. If you stop training scientists, you lose a generation of thinkers accustomed to scientific reasoning, critical analysis, and methodological rigour. Disrupting the education and training pipeline severely damages the entire research ecosystem.
The impact is even greater for fields requiring extensive instrumentation. Space research, for example, typically takes around 25 years to move from initial concept to launch. If a program is cancelled 10 or 15 years into its development, that’s essentially two decades of progress lost.
The same applies to many other scientific disciplines, where technical expertise and specialized equipment take years to develop. It’s not just about losing researchers with theoretical knowledge, it’s also about losing expert technicians who know how to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure.
While losing equipment is a setback, the greater loss is, however, the disintegration of the research community itself.
Jacobsen: Can you think of any historical precedents where science has been gutted, politicized, and undermined to this extent?
Scientist: Yes, it happened in Russia in the 1930s. The most well-known example is Trofim Lysenko, whose pseudoscientific ideas were politically embraced by the Soviet regime. His rejection of Mendelian genetics led to disastrous consequences for Soviet agriculture and severely damaged biological research in the USSR.
Interestingly, this level of scientific suppression did not fully occur in Nazi Germany. While Jewish scientists were expelled from academia, the Nazi regime still recognized the need for technical expertise, particularly in military research. As a result, science was not destroyed outright. However, it was often redirected toward war-related efforts, some of which had deeply unethical and destructive consequences.
Jacobsen: Have other major scientists spoken out about these developments?
Scientist: The situation in Germany has not yet reached a critical level. However, there is widespread concern about what is happening in the United States.
Some believe the instability in American science—where researchers are losing jobs and funding—could benefit German science by attracting displaced scientists. There is speculation that this could be an opportune moment to recruit talent.
However, that is a very short-sighted view.
Jacobsen: I hope the Perimeter Institute is hiring.
Scientist: Well, they do have a solid endowment. They can afford it if they see an opportunity to attract top researchers.
Jacobsen: This presents a different kind of challenge.
Every society grapples with long-standing issues—whether it’s expanding opportunities for women in science or creating pathways for skilled immigrants in search of a better future. Many nations have made strides toward inclusivity, yet racial and social tensions persist in some communities.
What we are witnessing now, however, is far more consequential—an abrupt, top-down assault on scientific institutions emanating from what remains the world’s foremost scientific powerhouse.
Scientist: Yes, and this broader demonization of entire segments of the population—such as undocumented immigrants—is deeply concerning.
I have no idea where this is heading. Still, the United States is already notable for its extraordinarily high number of guns and the willingness of people to use them. If this kind of rhetoric continues, it is only a matter of time before it leads to violence.
Jacobsen: People in America already shoot each other over traffic disputes.
Scientist: I know.
I lived there for ten years, and while there were many things I enjoyed, I was glad to return to Europe. I was on faculty at a U.S. university several decades ago, but away from the campuses, the major cities and the coastal regions, the undercurrents of this ideology were even visible back then.
People act as though this shift in the U.S. is a shocking development, but this strain of the population has always existed. You could see it when I was there, in the people driving pickup trucks with gun racks.
To ignore this, you would have had to be willfully blind. If you actually spoke to people, it would have been clear that many of their attitudes were fundamentally incompatible with pragmatic, evidence-based reasoning.
What has changed is that this relatively large segment of the population now has a figurehead—someone who speaks for them. That has allowed their worldview to gain mainstream dominance.
Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s not just science under attack.
I spoke with an African American businesswoman deeply engaged in women’s rights advocacy in the U.S. She has already witnessed the rollback of reproductive rights, but her greatest fear is that the broader agenda of these reactionary forces has yet to fully target women as a whole.
She worries that once that shift occurs, the assault on rights and freedoms will intensify even further.
Scientist: But it could be coming. Abortion rights are just one aspect of this broader issue. That has so far been their priority—they are very active on this front.
It is not a far leap from restricting reproductive rights to undermining women’s rights more generally, including their position in society.
Jacobsen: Yes, and the challenges are especially pronounced for women in professional fields.
I recently attended a panel featuring Nobel Prize winners, including a physicist who won in 2023. She spoke about the immense pride she felt in following in Marie Curie’s footsteps.
Yet, she also reflected on how long it has taken for women to gain recognition at the highest levels of science. Even today, people look back at historic footage of Marie Curie walking into that vast auditorium—at the time, the only woman to have won two Nobel Prizes.
It is deeply concerning that even as meaningful progress is being made, we are witnessing severe legal rollbacks that threaten access, opportunity, and equality.
Scientist: Yes, maybe.
Germany is still far from achieving full gender equality, especially in higher academic ranks. However, among graduate students at my institute, the gender balance is approximately 40-60.
The same trend is evident among postdoctoral researchers.
Jacobsen: What are your final thoughts?
Scientist: The current situation is highly uncertain, which makes it all the more unsettling. We do not know what will happen next.
People must focus on the importance of science, independent thought, and scientific reasoning. It is critical to uphold institutions that foster these values and demonstrate their significance to society.
Jacobsen: Excellent.
Scientist: People should not hesitate to call things out for what they are. If something aligns with fascist tactics, we should say so without fear.
Jacobsen: Agreed. Thank you very much for your time today.
Uliana Poltavets serves as the Ukraine Emergency Response Coordinator for Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). In a recent survey conducted between July 21 and September 18, 2024, PHR examined the impact of targeted attacks on Ukraine’s healthcare and energy infrastructure. The study, which surveyed 2,261 healthcare workers, uncovered alarming consequences: 92 percent reported power outages, leading to critical disruptions in surgeries, life support systems, and water supplies—resulting in deaths and permanent health complications.
Despite efforts to adapt through backup systems, significant gaps remain. The toll on frontline medical workers is staggering, with 83 percent experiencing severe stress and burnout. The report calls for urgent action, highlighting the need for increased resources, mental health support, and legal accountability for these attacks as war crimes. Its recommendations include continued financial and political support for Ukraine, reinforced international norms against targeting civilian infrastructure, and legal action against those responsible.
(Twitter)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What methodology was used in the survey of 2,261 Ukrainian healthcare workers?
Uliana Poltavets: We distributed an online survey to healthcare workers across Ukraine. 2,261 respondents to that survey were included in our analysis (5.6 percent were excluded due to incomplete data). The online survey, which was distributed from July 21 to September 18, 2024, is available in Ukrainian and English.
The survey gathered a wide range of data on the frequency and timing of attacks on health care and energy systems, power outages, and the impact of attacks and power cuts on health services, facility operations, and patient outcomes. Healthcare worker respondents represented diverse demographics, including physicians (37.3 percent), nurses (10.2 percent), administrative staff (44.4 percent), and other healthcare professionals (8.2 percent), from all 24 oblasts (provinces) of Ukraine and Kyiv, with females constituting a majority (71.7 percent). Demographic data was compared to the National Health Service of Ukraine and Medical Statistics of Ukraine data and is generally consistent with these distributions.
The survey’s voluntary nature and absence of probability sampling mean that the findings cannot be generalized to Ukraine’s healthcare system. Under-reporting and potential double counting of incidents may affect accuracy, though flagged cases of medical complications or deaths help mitigate this risk. Self-reported data may include recall bias and inconsistencies due to the challenging conflict conditions. Given the difficulties in reporting faced by clinicians, particularly in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine, figures may undercount the true tolls of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Jacobsen: The report highlights that 92% of healthcare workers experienced power outages. These were targeted attacks on energy infrastructure. How do these impact patient care possibilities?
Poltavets: Electricity is the lifeblood of the health sector, powering lifesaving devices and enabling essential medical services. It supports diagnostics, emergency response, vaccinations, medication distribution, and the daily functionality of health facilities. As our report title references, health care in Ukraine was forced to proceed “in the dark” due to Russian attacks.
As recognized by many accountability mechanisms and international organizations, such as the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (UN HRMMU) and the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, energy attacks have devastating impacts on the health sector in Ukraine. The damage to power facilities and resulting blackouts have limited hospitals’ capacity to provide essential services, interrupted medical procedures, and compromised patient care. Among notable examples of impacts on patient care are interrupted or delayed surgeries, forcing surgeons to operate in darkness illuminated only by flashlights; failures in life support systems; medication and biological samples storage issues; discontinued flow of water to hospitals; diagnostic and treatment equipment becoming unusable; impeded maternal care service delivery; and other impacts on health care provision.
Jacobsen: Permanent health harms and deaths were reported because of these energy attacks. What are concrete examples of this?
Poltavets: Our survey identified 20 reports of deaths and 36 reports of permanent health harms, though these figures likely undercount the full extent of harms given the challenges in reporting. Most often, Ukrainian healthcare workers reported cases of organ damage and deaths due to inadequate oxygenation (when patients who are unable to breathe on their own lose access to their mechanical breathing support). Out of 36 reported cases of permanent harm, 11 were linked to inadequate oxygenation, and among 20 reported deaths, seven were attributed to the same cause. In such instances, health workers resort to manual ventilation, which, if prolonged or improperly performed, can cause serious complications or fatalities. Additional harms included delays in critical surgeries, interruptions in dialysis, and failures of life-saving equipment, resulting in deaths and severe health consequences. This aligns with global findings that power outages, even in non-conflict settings, can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, particularly among patients relying on electricity-dependent medical devices.
President Zelensky visiting wounded soldiers at the Superhumans Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Center in Lviv.
Jacobsen: These attacks disrupt critical services like surgeries, life support systems, and water supply. How have healthcare facilities adapted to these challenges?
Poltavets: Healthcare facilities in Ukraine have implemented various measures to adapt to power outages caused by attacks on energy infrastructure. The Ministry of Health, with the help of international partners, has provided backup generators and is working to supply hospitals with alternative energy sources, such as solar panels. However, these measures are not always sufficient. Surveyed healthcare workers reported delays in activating backup systems—sometimes lasting hours or even days—which can severely disrupt critical hospital functions. While helpful, generators offer limited capacity and cannot fully replace grid power, leading to gaps in service and risks to sensitive medical equipment. Health workers emphasize the need for additional resources such as solar panels, hybrid energy systems, and reliable internet access to improve resilience.
Jacobsen: Stress and burnout increased among 83% of healthcare workers surveyed. What measures can be taken to support these frontline workers’ mental health and resilience?
Poltavets: Ukrainian healthcare workers face immense stress and burnout, exacerbated by working in disaster conditions for nearly three years, grappling with power outages, trauma, and the unrelenting toll of patient care coming under attack. Measures to support their mental health and resilience should include access to counseling, mental health services, and peer support programs, as well as training on preparedness for response to attacks. Addressing systemic challenges, such as providing reliable power sources and reducing administrative burdens caused by delayed data systems, can also alleviate stress. Additionally, the government and international community must ensure that the burden of response does not fall solely on staff by equipping facilities with the necessary resources and creating robust mental health support systems.
Given the minimum of 1539 verified attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure since February 2022, how are perpetrators held accountable under international law?
To date, the perpetrators of these attacks on healthcare in Ukraine have not been held to account under international law – this must remain an urgent priority for Ukrainian and international prosecutors. And it is important to note that these are not just separate incidents but a clear pattern of violations. We have analyzed these patterns, and we have a reasonable basis to believe that Russian attacks on health in Ukraine constitute war crimes and potential crimes against humanity.
We see numerous possibilities for addressing crimes, such as attacking health care. There are opportunities for investigations and arriving at justice at both the international and domestic levels—through the International Criminal Court, national prosecutions, the UN mechanisms, and compensation and restitution mechanisms. There is also the possibility of individual sanctions against perpetrators of attacks.
For years, health care has been a target of many conflicts worldwide, but these cases are hardly ever prosecuted as the international crimes that they are, if at all. The ICC charge put forward in 2024 against Russian commanders for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the campaign of attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure suggests “alleged strikes were directed against civilian objects” and “the expected incidental civilian harm and damage would have been excessive to the anticipated military advantage.” But more needs to be done. For example, the ICC case represents an opportunity to ensure accountability for the harm to the health sector resulting from attacks on energy infrastructure.
Jacobsen: What are the key recommendations from the report to support Ukraine’s healthcare system?
Poltavets: The global community must ignite efforts to hold Russia accountable for international law violations resulting from these attacks. Increasing financial and political support for Ukrainian health care facilities, condemning attacks on health and energy infrastructure as well weapons sellers to the Russian Federation for violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, and advocating for the protection and safe release of health care workers in conflict zones should be priorities. Strengthening international norms against such attacks, enhancing data collection, and supporting accountability mechanisms to investigate and prosecute violations as war crimes and crimes against humanity are critical.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Uliana.
Davis Richardson, managing partner at Paradox Public Relations and CEO of AUSP, offers an incisive look at Ukraine’s ongoing battle against corruption and its pursuit of economic reform. AUSP stands for America Ukraine Strategic Partners and was launched in 2023 after Davis visited Ukraine. It facilitates partnerships between Ukrainian entities and American organizations, including U.S. defence contractors and Western investors.
Davis unpacks the complexities of decentralization, the critical role of foreign investment, and the necessity of government transparency. Richardson also underscores the importance of strategic alliances among Eastern European nations in pushing back against Russian influence. Reflecting on the legacy of Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, he highlights the country’s enduring struggle for democracy. As Ukraine accelerates its push for EU integration, he stresses the urgency of dismantling entrenched corruption, ensuring accountability, and leveraging international support to drive economic growth and institutional reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are Ukraine’s main challenges when advancing anti-corruption initiatives within government institutions?
Davis Richardson: The primary issue is structural. However, before discussing Ukraine’s challenges, it is important to highlight its strengths.
Russia currently suffers from the limitations of a centralized, top-down economy and decision-making system. This has been evident in how it manages military recruitment. For example, there is currently strong demand in Russia for drone operator roles because they reduce the likelihood of being deployed to frontline combat.
As a result, many young Russian men are seeking to become drone operators to avoid being drafted for direct military service. In response, the Russian government has implemented new regulations to curb this trend, which, in turn, has fueled public dissatisfaction and unrest.
Ukraine, on the other hand, faces the opposite problem. Its government is highly decentralized, which reduces the risk of authoritarian rule like that seen under Putin. However, decentralization comes with its own set of challenges.
For example, many Ukrainian governmental institutions and municipalities do not communicate effectively with one another. As a result, two separate non-profits—perhaps one based in the U.S., but more often two Ukrainian organizations—may develop similar solutions to the same issue without even being aware of each other’s existence, let alone coordinating their efforts.
Decentralization has clear benefits. The United States itself is built on a decentralized governmental model. When you read The Federalist Papers, you see that the separation of powers was a foundational principle that enabled America’s growth and stability.
However, Ukraine is currently facing the limitations of a decentralized system during wartime, particularly as Russia has been actively undermining the country for decades, not just since World War II.
Addressing these challenges will be a difficult and complex process. However, the most critical step is improving communication between municipalities—encouraging dialogue and fostering mutual recognition and legitimacy. Sometimes, one politician may attempt to discredit another by accusing them of corruption, which only exacerbates the problem.
When Ukrainians say corruption, it has a completely different meaning than it does to Americans. When we think of anti-corruption, we often imagine oligarchs running off with taxpayer dollars. In Ukraine, however, corruption refers to something much more insidious—whether government members are taking payments from Moscow and providing intelligence to Russia.
That’s a fundamentally different, existential definition of the term. As the United States continues to engage with Ukraine, it must recognize the importance of clear communication around these terms.
Jacobsen: How would you assess the effectiveness of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, specifically NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, and SAPO, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office?
Richardson: There is still a long way to go. First, there are different factions within these agencies. Kyiv has a unique political dynamic compared to the rest of the country.
In the U.S., we think of smearing political opponents in places like New York or D.C. or even at a Super Bowl game. However, Ukraine has a cultural element that is left over from the Soviet era. Political opposition is often smeared as pro-Russian, and these accusations are frequently used as a political weapon.
The paradox is that corruption is a significant issue in Ukraine, and anti-corruption initiatives are essential. However, the challenge lies in ensuring these efforts are effective, as corruption still exists at a practical level. At the same time, if everyone is labeled corrupt or pro-Russian, the term loses its meaning.
Samantha Power, former head of USAID, visiting Diia in July of 2023.
Jacobsen: If everyone is “special,” no one is special.
Richardson: Exactly. That’s another challenge I’ve encountered. However, overall, the government has made significant progress.
Ukraine is committed to integrating into the European Union, and these reforms are a key part of that effort. That said, much of the process needs to be streamlined. I believe the Ministry of Digital Transformation is an excellent starting point. Among government agencies, aside from the military, it is one of the few that enjoys broad support across Ukrainian society.
When Russia invaded, the Diia was launched, becoming a highly successful digital platform. It has been recognized by the United States and leading international institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations. The Diia is successful by every metric and is widely popular among Ukrainians.
The benefits would be substantial if a similar approach were applied to coordinating various anti-corruption task forces and initiatives.
Jacobsen: What can other transitional and post-Soviet democracies learn from Ukraine’s setbacks and successes in anti-corruption reforms? I should add one qualifier—they have the significant advantage of not having to implement these reforms in the middle of a war.
Richardson: Yeah, well, that’s one benefit. If you look at a country like Poland, it serves as a successful example. In many ways, Ukraine’s journey now mirrors the steps that Poland’s ancestors took in their march toward freedom.
The main lesson here is that conversations about anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine are nothing new. They date back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, these discussions have often played out like a three-card Monte game. Western investors or government agencies are led to believe reforms are happening, but real change is not implemented.
Before the full-scale invasion, projects cost millions of dollars yet produced little to show. These initiatives were developed using public funds in partnership with the private sector. That is why it is crucial to establish tangible results and clear benchmarks to measure success.
The key question is: Are we having conversations that genuinely move the needle forward, or are we just going in circles? It will be a challenging process, but the focus must shift from mere discussions about corruption to achieving concrete results with clear indicators of success.
Jacobsen: What anti-corruption efforts resonate more with the Ukrainian public but may not have the same impact on an American audience? Earlier, you mentioned the definitional differences in how corruption is understood. How would the Ukrainian public perceive certain efforts as more substantive compared to the United States?
Richardson: Well, there’s an interesting overlap in areas of agreement. In the U.S., the media often portrays the anti-corruption debate as Ukraine misusing American taxpayer dollars. But the reality is, if corruption occurs, who suffers even more than Americans? The answer is Ukrainians.
Before USAID was shut down, I spoke at an event they hosted in Kyiv. A brilliant scholar from Kharkiv presented research showing that municipal funds promised for specific projects never reached their intended destinations. He later won a competition for this research.
Just as Americans sometimes misunderstand the term corruption in the Ukrainian context, there is also a misinterpretation of who is most affected. In reality, Ukrainians and Americans share an interest in ensuring that financial aid is allocated properly—to both NGOs and government programs as originally intended.
This has been a significant challenge. The Biden administration issued a blank check to Ukraine without sufficient oversight. There were painful lessons, but the harshest consequences were felt on Ukraine’s side.
That said, I believe Ukraine is moving in the right direction to implement the necessary reforms. However, it is a slow process and will take time.
Jacobsen: For comparison, how does corruption play out in neighbouring countries—Romania, Moldova, Russia, etc.? This will help readers understand that the conversation around anti-corruption is not isolated to Ukraine.
Richardson: So the question is, how does corruption affect those countries, and how do they respond to it?
At the end of the day, there is a common theme: Where is the funding for these anti-democratic movements coming from? In nearly every case, the source is the same.
Countries that struggle with corruption also face an existential threat—it is not just about self-interest or personal gain. Corruption often functions as active sabotage, benefiting an adversary that seeks to undermine democratic institutions. This is an ongoing fight. Look at what is happening in Georgia right now. Ukraine has consistently been—both metaphorically and literally—on the front lines of resisting Russian authoritarianism.
However, the moment you allow corruption to take hold, you can quickly end up in a situation like Georgia, where certain officials enter office under suspicious circumstances, possibly receiving foreign payments, and the fabric of the government begins to erode.
The United States decided to sanction the Georgian government for similar reasons.
When discussing countries, we need to break this down further. A country is composed of its government, but where does that government’s loyalty lie? Is it acting as a proxy for a hostile foreign power, or are there individual activists and opposition groups fighting against it?
The key takeaway for those activists and opposition groups is to watch what is happening in Ukraine.
Additionally, countries facing similar challenges should consider forming strategic partnerships. Is there potential for a NATO-style alliance of Eastern and Central European countries that share these struggles and want to reduce reliance on U.S. support?
That could be one potential solution—an alliance that functions like NATO but focuses specifically on countering corruption and anti-democratic forces in the region.
Jacobsen: What needs to be done in the short term? What steps can be taken to further anti-corruption efforts and counter anti-democratic forces within Ukrainian institutions?
Richardson: I think private equity and private capital will be driving forces in Ukraine. There is already significant movement surrounding U.S. investment funds entering Ukraine’s market. Many firms have strict corporate governance standards and will not tolerate certain past behaviours.
Some actors and organizations in Ukraine are eager to move away from oligarchic practices and the siphoning of public funds. They want to leave that era behind. At this point, it is essentially a “get with the program or get out” scenario.
It is a carrot-and-stick approach—if companies want to secure reconstruction contracts and requests for proposals (RFPs) from international players and U.S. investment firms, they must meet clear benchmarks. This includes transparency regarding which vendors are involved and the principal stakeholders and ensuring government funds are spent with full accountability.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts?
Richardson: The next year is going to be critical for Ukraine. While we have discussed difficult topics, it is important to recognize that Ukrainians lead some of the most significant anti-corruption progress. They want a clean break from the past.
Opportunities have been missed in the past, but Ukraine is now in a position to thrive—especially with strong U.S. and European support.
At the end of the day, Maidan and the Revolution of Dignity were not just political protests. Nearly one million people participated in the Revolution of Dignity, which is more than a revolution—it is transformational.
What we are witnessing today is the continuation of that movement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not begin in 2022—it started with Crimea in 2014. Ukraine is on a path to freedom, and those taking the right steps understand that they must change some of their past business practices to become part of the European Union and attract foreign investment.
This transformation will be difficult and painful, but we are here to support them, share expertise, and connect them with the right people who can help Ukraine build a sustainable future.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Richardson: Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it. Please keep me posted on the progress of this.
Valeria Kovtun is a Ukrainian media specialist and the founder of Filter, Ukraine’s first government-backed media literacy initiative. She has collaborated with global organizations, including the Zinc Network, IREX, OSCE, and UNDP, to combat disinformation and promote critical thinking. Her editorial and production experience spans major outlets such as BBC Reel, Radio Free Europe/Liberty, and Ukrainian National TV.
Currently, Kovtun works with the Open Minds Institute, a cognitive defense agency dedicated to analyzing emerging threats, conducting research, and executing counter-influence operations. Her focus lies in reaching hard-to-access audiences—particularly within authoritarian regimes and closed digital platforms.
A Chevening scholar, she earned an MSc in Media and Communications Governance from the London School of Economics. Her research explores the dynamics of international propaganda, with a particular interest in the role of humor as a tool against disinformation.
(LinkedIn)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you become interested in media and propaganda?
Valeria Kovtun: I started in journalism because I was particularly interested in human behaviour—how people think, why they act the way they do, and how I could support those struggling with certain issues. After working in journalism, I joined the BBC, which had always been my dream. Most journalism students in Ukraine are taught that the BBC is the gold standard, but theory can differ from reality.
I always wanted to experience it in real life. Once I worked at the BBC, I realized there was much more to explore. Journalism was not the only profession I wanted to pursue; I had an entire world of opportunities.
After studying governance at LSE, I naturally progressed to policy. That’s why I returned to Ukraine after my time in London—to launch a national media literacy project. Today, Filter is a well-recognized institution in Ukraine, coordinating efforts to educate people about misinformation.
Of course, during the full-scale invasion, our work shifted from policy to more immediate, action-driven solutions. Everything became much faster-paced, which accelerated our growth. At the same time, it became difficult to maintain a singular focus. Instead of just educating people about misinformation, we had to actively combat disinformation itself—proactively responding to Russian propaganda circulating within Ukraine and abroad, which sought to undermine support for our country.
As a result, I transitioned into advocacy, helping explain to the world how propaganda works. Ukraine found itself at the forefront of an extremely aggressive information war, facing an avalanche of fake stories on various platforms and within local communities. We experienced all of this firsthand on the ground.
Obviously, if you have lived experience, you know I was encircled. I spent a few weeks in a very dangerous area, witnessing firsthand how fake stories spread throughout the environment and how lost people felt when faced with hundreds of local chat groups, but with little understanding of which ones were telling the truth.
When you have to make quick decisions to save your life or the lives of your loved ones, knowing where the truth lies, how to verify information, and which sources to trust is not just essential—it is paramount for survival.
That experience gave me firsthand insight. I understood the tactics behind disinformation, I knew how Russian propaganda operated, and at the same time, I was deeply involved in policymaking. Having all these perspectives allowed me to effectively address various communities—from policymakers to the general public—explaining why we need to act proactively, what steps we must take to protect ourselves from aggressive disinformation campaigns, and how we can build resilient societies capable of identifying and resisting propaganda in critical moments.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about humor. It has long been a tool for undermining illegitimate institutions, exposing moral hypocrisy, and challenging authority. Despite its potency, it’s often dismissed as lightweight—perhaps because it can be silly or irreverent. Yet, in the context of disinformation and propaganda, humor can be remarkably effective. How do you use it in this fight?
I can offer a personal example. In the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a now largely abandoned Kremlin talking point made the rounds in North American media. The claim? Ukraine was overrun by neo-Nazis—so much so that it was supposedly led by a so-called “Jewish neo-Nazi,” an absurd reference to President Zelensky himself.
I remember thinking: Zelensky is a former comedian, so this had to be one of the greatest setups for a joke in history—courtesy of the Kremlin—followed by the ultimate punchline: his very existence. The sheer contradiction of a “Jewish neo-Nazi” was so self-defeating that the narrative quickly collapsed.
Humor thrives on juxtaposition, on exposing contradictions. Given your work in media literacy and counter-disinformation, how do you employ humor to challenge international propaganda?
Kovtun: We are witnessing a significant shift in the information environment. Traditional democratic approaches—such as presenting verified information and offering a balance of perspectives—no longer capture the public’s interest.
Instead, we see that individuals with charisma, who appeal to emotions, are dominating the political landscape. There is a growing demand from societies worldwide for content that resonates emotionally, prompting them to act based on feelings rather than facts.
The same applies to humour. I have encountered countless articles, long-form texts, and in-depth investigations that aim to debunk specific misinformation or disinformation. But the challenge is that debunking takes time. You must thoroughly research, gather facts, and construct solid arguments to prove that a particular disinformation is false.
By the time you publish an article or investigative report, most people have already been exposed to the disinformation itself. And because they process information emotionally, convincing them after the fact becomes much harder. People remember what they first see, even if they scrolled past it.
Disinformation is usually emotional and appealing and can be subconsciously remembered. Once it is mentioned elsewhere, people tend to believe it even more. This is the problem with traditional debunking.
And what does humour do? Humour appeals to emotions. If you ridicule someone spreading a fake story, you evoke a positive emotion in the audience. That makes them more likely to remember your rebuttal.
It does not always have to be rational. It does not always have to be fact-based. The facts can come later. But the first thing you do is evoke emotion. And what is the most common emotional response? Laughter.
You laugh. You experience something positive—especially when there is an avalanche of negative news, which most people would rather avoid. But people are more inclined to pause and engage when something brings positivity. That is how humour works.
However, using humour effectively does not require extensive strategizing. Humour is often intuitive. Most of the time, the best jokes come to us when we are not thinking about them. We do not have to sit down and list all the potential ideas.
We do not need to brainstorm endlessly. Humour often emerges naturally from our lived experiences.
The same was true for Ukrainians in 2022. There was an incredible amount of energy within communities in Ukraine. There was resilience. There was unity. That collective spirit fueled humour and helped ridicule Russian propaganda. It also created viral stories of resilience—like the tale of an elderly Ukrainian woman knocking down a drone with a jar of tomatoes. Many of these stories were semi-true, semi-fictional. But they boosted morale at a crucial time.
Now, nearly three years after the war began, it has become harder to maintain that same level of positivity. When people constantly face existential threats, never knowing when their town might be hit or whether they will be safe the next day, humour becomes more difficult to sustain.
Humour was a powerful tool. But today, due to continuous threats and the sheer emotional toll, it is much harder for Ukrainians to create jokes that resonate with millions of people worldwide. So, going back to your question—humour works. But what works even better is developing our narratives.
If you analyze Russian propaganda, you will notice a pattern in how they communicate. Their messaging is extremely simple. It consists of short sentences, strong, active verbs, and no passive voice. It is highly emotional. It appeals to people’s most basic needs. And it is always repetitive.
If you look at Russian state media, Ukrainian Telegram channels that spread Russian propaganda, or even prominent Kremlin-aligned figures in the U.S.—such as Tucker Carlson—you will see that their messaging follows the same formula: the fewer details, the better.
In 2022, we discovered several Telegram channels operated by Russian accounts designed to spread disinformation in Ukraine. Within those channels, they even shared internal guidelines on how to create fake news.
The core rules were clear: Keep it simple, repeat as often as possible, and avoid unnecessary details—except for one or two to add credibility.
It is a marketing technique. When marketers promote a product, they use the exact same approach.
That is what we need to do as well. We do not have to debunk every piece of disinformation that circulates. Instead, we need to focus on telling our own story—who we are as a nation and what we are fighting for.
If we say, “We are fighting for democracy,” what does that even mean? How can people feel that? What is the tangible result of living in a democracy? Russian propaganda is effective because it simplifies concepts and makes them emotional.
We must counter it by crafting equally clear and emotionally compelling narratives.
They frame it in a way that suggests we are abandoning our traditional values. They present Russia as the key guardian of traditional Orthodoxy and family values.
This is something an ordinary person can immediately imagine. You do not need to think abstractly about liberty or freedom of speech—especially if you take those rights for granted. These concepts may not resonate as strongly. But when something is tangible and easy to picture, propaganda becomes effective. That is how Russian disinformation works.
In response, simply debunking it by saying, “Oh no, no, this is not what Russia means; let me explain,” and then overwhelming people with hundreds of facts does not work. The human brain is not wired to absorb massive amounts of raw information. It is wired to process stories, to internalize them, and to apply them to real-life experiences.
This is why humour can be a powerful instrument.
Vladimir Putin pictured alongside Margarita Simonyan, one of the Kremlin’s many propagandists
Jacobsen: What ideological movements or identity-based politics are most amplified in social media disinformation?
Kovtun: One of the defining characteristics of modern propaganda is how fragmented it has become. Tailoring content to very niche communities, even sub-identities is much easier.
For example, on platforms like TikTok, there has been an increase in propaganda content specifically targeting widows of Ukrainian soldiers. The war has created this distinct community—people bound by shared grief, sadness, and the search for support or validation from each other or the state.
Another example would be mothers, sisters, and wives of soldiers who have gone missing. These women have no idea where their loved ones are—whether they are alive or not. They are living in fear, clinging to the hope that their loved ones may still be alive, and desperately searching for any information.
By exploiting their vulnerability, propaganda and disinformation can effectively manipulate these specific groups. When I talk about fragmentation, I mean that with AI and digital tools becoming cheaper and more accessible, creating and disseminating targeted content has become significantly easier. This makes propaganda more precise and allows it to tap into the specific pain points of different communities.
In Ukraine, this is evident. If we look at Latin America, we see the same pattern. Previously, major Russian-backed media outlets like Russia Today (RT) and other state-controlled groups had a strong presence. However, since many Western democratic countries have banned them, Russia has adapted.
Now, they localize their efforts. Instead of relying on large, recognizable media outlets, they create smaller, localized news sources that blend truth with disinformation. These sources legitimately report on local issues, making their narratives harder to detect.
Over time, through a cohesive, sustained effort, they introduce geopolitical narratives that favour authoritarian regimes and undermine democratic institutions. So, regarding ideologies, propaganda today is highly tailored to different communities.
The overarching goal is to promote authoritarianism. How it is executed depends on the local context. For instance, anti-U.S. sentiment is a powerful entry point in many Latin American and African countries. Any message that aligns with anti-Western rhetoric is more likely to be accepted. Once that foundation is laid, additional disinformation can be built on top with much less resistance.
Jacobsen: How do Russian and other propaganda sources frame narratives for domestic audiences versus international audiences? And also, when exporting propaganda, do they adjust their messaging for different regions?
Kovtun: The short answer is yes. Russian propaganda has been shaping narratives for domestic audiences for decades. This means the Kremlin already has a fertile ground for circulating long-established talking points.
What I mean by fertile ground is that, for many years, the Kremlin has systematically prepared its population for events like the invasion of Ukraine. One way they have done this is by suppressing any potential political opposition.
For instance, a major tactic has been ensuring that educated citizens—those with university degrees and knowledge of foreign languages—become apolitical. How do they achieve that? By creating a climate of distrust.
They make sure that people believe no one can be trusted. Even if someone recognizes that Russian state media is corrupt, they are also conditioned to distrust Western media, such as the BBC or other foreign outlets.
When people are unsure who to trust, they withdraw from political engagement altogether. They stop questioning, seeking alternative viewpoints, shutting down, and avoiding thinking about politics.
So, the Kremlin has deliberately eroded personal agency in many individuals who might have become political dissenters.
This is why, today, we see millions of Russians reluctant to speak out—not because they are all loyal to the Kremlin, but because they have been conditioned into passivity over many years.
This did not happen overnight. It was a long-term strategy. For international audiences, the Kremlin takes a localized approach to propaganda. For example, we now see a growing presence of Russian-backed media sources designed specifically for local audiences in Africa.
Interestingly, democratic institutions often overlook entertainment platforms, but Russian propaganda finds its largest audiences precisely there. A fascinating case involved a troll factory in St. Petersburg, where they had an entire specialized unit dedicated to producing astrology websites and horoscopes.
At first glance, it seems unrelated to geopolitics. However, these seemingly innocent platforms were used to subtly introduce and reinforce Kremlin-friendly narratives—gradually shaping public perception in a way that people would not immediately recognize as propaganda.
This was not just speculation—it was proven when a journalist went undercover and worked inside the troll factory for some time.
One journalist who worked at the troll factory was in charge of a special project for which she was tasked with creating a fictional persona named Contadora. Contadora was presented as a spiritual leader, and her content mixed personal stories with geopolitical narratives.
For example, in one story, she talks about her sister living in Germany and describes having a bad dream in which her sister was taken by dark forces. She then interpreted the dream as a warning—suggesting that Germany was too dependent on the U.S. and vulnerable to American influence. This is just one small example.
But imagine if most African entertainment platforms featured similar astrologers and spiritual leaders embedding subtle political messaging. And this is not just happening in Africa.
If you look at global trends, there has been a significant rise in belief in the paranormal, mysticism, and spirituality—especially among Gen Z. For instance, the #TarotReading hashtag has attracted millions of views on TikTok.
Within these tarot and astrology videos, we have seen cases—especially in France and Germany—where certain tarot readers subtly introduce geopolitical narratives to their audiences.
This is just one example of how propaganda adapts to digital culture. And yet, in democratic societies, where we enjoy freedom of speech and open dialogue, Russian propaganda can easily integrate into various platforms and find creative ways to spread its messages.
Meanwhile, democracies are often disadvantaged because ethical considerations bind them. They worry about the best way to communicate narratives without crossing ethical boundaries.
Because of this fundamental difference in governance, democratic societies will always face certain limitations in their response strategies. That is why I encourage my partners in the EU to think outside the box—not just focus on discussions within our own bubble but be more creative in how we counter disinformation.
Humour could be one approach to promoting democratic narratives. But I am sure there are many more innovative strategies we have not even explored yet.
Jacobsen: Valeria, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Kovtun: Thank you. Let me know if you have any questions or if you need clarification on anything. I’m happy to help.
Michael Ashley Schulman, partner and Chief Investment Officer at Running Point Capital Advisors, offers a nuanced perspective on the economic impact of reciprocal tariffs. Rather than viewing tariffs as long-term inflationary forces, Schulman frames them as one-time price shocks that ripple through industries in distinct ways.
With deep expertise in wealth management, portfolio structuring, and financial market analysis, Schulman advises high-net-worth families and registered investment advisors on risk assessment and strategic planning. A Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), he frequently speaks at investment conferences, dissecting macroeconomic trends, market dynamics, and trade policy.
In this discussion, Schulman explores tariffs as both a strategic tool and a double-edged sword—capable of fostering domestic self-sufficiency while potentially stifling competition and innovation over time. Citing China’s response to AI chip restrictions, he underscores how tariffs can shape trade negotiations and economic strategy. He also highlights the market’s ability to adapt within one to four quarters, advising investors to position themselves either long or short in specific sectors based on risk tolerance.
Ultimately, Schulman situates tariffs within the broader framework of economic policy, trade balances, and global market stability—where every action risks provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the world stage.
(Running Point Capital Advisors)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With President Donald Trump poised to impose tariffs across the board on several countries—and the likelihood of reciprocal tariffs in response—how would you advise your clients to navigate this evolving economic landscape?
Michael Ashley Schulman: The reality is that even with the promise of reciprocal tariffs being enacted, they probably won’t affect the prices of goods already in the U.S.—in stores and inventory—so the retail and commercial price adjustments may still be a month or several months away.
We advise our clients to remember that tariffs typically represent a one-time adjustment to pricing and are only one of many factors influencing corporate economics, employment, stocks, and asset prices.
While common rhetoric suggests tariffs are inflationary, technically they are import taxes paid by the purchaser, and like other taxes, tend to be deflationary rather than inflationary.
Overall, reciprocal tariff expectations remain a wildcard, and it may be premature to predict specifically where and how they’ll impact markets. Although their effects may be identifiable, the Trump administration may be leveraging them primarily as a negotiation tactic.
The advantage of reciprocal tariffs versus arbitrary ones is that they immediately provide other countries with clear parameters for negotiation.
From an economic perspective, entertainment, travel, and service companies may be less affected by tariffs, potentially offering greater stability in uncertain times.
The U.S. economy’s unique positioning and robust fundamentals point to steady growth, albeit with elevated risks and a challenging investment landscape. Additionally, we anticipate AI technologies helping to address the growing pains of a transitioning labor force, as developments like self-driving vehicles may require Uber and Lyft drivers to find new opportunities within the evolving gig economy.
Recognizing that tariffs can function both as a constraint on business growth and a catalyst for structural change, institutional investors with a genuinely long-term perspective should consider investing in resilient industries affected by tariffs.
This approach may allow them to acquire assets at favorable valuations, particularly since tariffs typically represent a one-time adjustment to price levels rather than ongoing costs. Excessive fears about tariffs could present attractive buying opportunities, especially in high-demand industries.
(Paul Teysen/Unsplash)
Jacobsen: How do reciprocal tariffs differ from traditional tariffs regarding their economic impact on bilateral trade?
Schulman: It depends. How do they differ? Both are tariffs, and economically speaking, a tariff is a tax. When people hear “tariffs,” most assume they are inflationary and will drive up prices. However, there are nuances to consider.
Tariffs create a one-time price increase, whereas inflation tends to be continuous. For instance, a 5% inflation rate means prices rise by 5% yearly, compounding over time. In contrast, tariffs impose a single price adjustment.
Because tariffs function as a tax, they do not necessarily cause ongoing inflation. If a government increases taxes, consumers have less disposable income, which can reduce spending — a deflationary effect. From a macroeconomic perspective, tariffs act as a deflationary measure when viewed as a tax. Even when considering their price impact, tariffs result in a one-time price increase rather than persistent inflation. Additionally, tariffs often drive changes in consumer behaviour — people may seek cheaper substitutes, alternative suppliers, or reduce consumption.
For example, if a 10% tariff is imposed on imported goods, prices will rise, but not uniformly. Some consumers will switch to domestic products, others may find alternative international suppliers, and some will buy less overall. Traditional tariffs are unilateral and imposed without necessarily targeting another country’s policies. Reciprocal tariffs, however, are imposed in response to a tariff from another country. This dynamic makes reciprocal tariffs a negotiation tool, as they explicitly target specific economic sectors or industries in the retaliating nation.
Jacobsen: When it comes to reciprocal tariffs—often seen as retaliatory trade measures from other nations—do they pose a significant economic reality, or is the threat of such countermeasures largely overstated?
Schulman: It is a reality. Reciprocal tariffs, by definition, are retaliatory. Whether the initial tariff was intended as a protective measure or an economic bargaining tool, the affected country typically perceives it as an offensive move. Even if a tariff is not explicitly labelled as reciprocal, any unilateral tariff can trigger retaliatory action from trading partners. This is a fundamental aspect of trade wars, where nations escalate tariffs and counter-tariffs, leading to disruptions in global trade, supply chains, and market stability.
If a tariff is well thought out—if imposed to protect a nascent industry or for a specific economic reason, such as safeguarding certain employees or sectors—the other country may understand the rationale. It becomes part of any negotiation. However, if tariffs are imposed willy-nilly, the other side may be taken aback.
Then, the key question becomes: Is this truly a tariff, or is the administration using it as a negotiating stance? Is there something else they want in exchange for removing the tariff? Do they want better border enforcement, stricter drug enforcement, or reductions in long-standing tariffs that have been in place for five or ten years but may no longer be necessary? Understanding the reasoning behind a tariff is crucial. It is always important to assess whether the tariff is purely retaliatory, tit-for-tat, or whether it serves as leverage to negotiate something else.
Jacobsen: It gets the other party’s attention and can bring them to the negotiating table — if that is the intent.
Schulman: It gets the other side’s attention and can either bring them to the negotiating table or provoke a reaction.
Jacobsen: How do nations typically respond when a tariff is imposed without a clear objective?
Schulman: If a tariff is imposed without any intent to negotiate, the reaction from the affected country is often aggressive and defensive, and it may be perceived as an insult or threat. We see this with Canada’s response to some of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Traditionally, the U.S. and Canada have had a strong economic relationship — we are neighbours, rely on each other, and are allies. However, when a tariff appears unjustified or imposed for its own sake, it creates an adverse reaction and puts the other country in a hostile and defensive posture. The affected country may view it as a punitive action rather than a bargaining tool, making retaliatory tariffs, trade barriers, or restrictions more likely.
Typically, the goal is to avoid a trade war. You do not want both sides escalating tariffs because, as I said earlier, tariffs function as taxes. If both sides increase tariffs, both sides will effectively raise taxes on their economies, which is harmful. It hurts growth and creates economic inefficiencies. Additionally, tariffs have broader consequences for businesses and supply chains. They can disrupt global supply networks, increase production costs, drive up consumer prices, and introduce volatility into financial markets. These uncertainties make long-term planning difficult for corporations and investors alike.
Jacobsen: How might reciprocal tariffs influence employment and consumer prices?
Schulman: The key impact is restraint — raising input costs while reducing demand. The effects will vary across industries depending on how they intersect with global supply chains. Manufacturing industries that rely heavily on imported components, such as electronics and automobiles, may face higher production costs, reduced competitiveness, and potential price increases for consumers. This could also lead to a slowdown in productivity.
On the other hand, service-based industries — such as entertainment, hospitality, restaurants, amusement parks, and travel — tend to be less affected by tariffs because they do not rely on importing goods that would be subject to such measures. However, manufacturing, agriculture, technology, automotive, and retail industries are more likely to be impacted due to rising costs.
For businesses, these increased costs usually result in one of two outcomes: either companies absorb the higher costs, which reduces their profit margins and valuations, or they pass the costs onto consumers through higher prices, reducing demand. If demand decreases and sales decline, business valuations still take a hit. However, restrictions on imports create market opportunities for domestic substitutes.
As I mentioned earlier, tariffs typically have a one-time economic impact. The market usually adapts over time. Most negative effects are short-lived, and businesses eventually adjust to the new price levels.
Jacobsen: How do multinational corporations adapt to the complexities of global supply chain shifts? Even if their manufacturing is primarily based in one nation, what strategies do they employ to navigate these evolving economic landscapes?
Schulman: The classic MBA answer is: it depends. And that is an interesting question. Rather than speaking in theory, let me give you a real-world example.
Take Procter & Gamble, a massive American multinational specializing in consumer goods and household staples. While it is based in the U.S., many key ingredients, chemicals, and raw materials are imported from China and Mexico.
Conversely, some of Procter & Gamble’s competitors — Nestlé and Unilever, both foreign companies — produce much of what they sell within the U.S. rather than importing it. As a result, tariffs may negatively impact Procter & Gamble more than Nestlé and Unilever, despite all three companies operating in the same consumer goods space. Since Nestlé and Unilever source more of their goods domestically than one might expect, they are less exposed to tariffs.
Meanwhile, Procter & Gamble relies more heavily on imported ingredients and chemicals, making them more vulnerable to tariff-related cost increases.
Jacobsen: How long does it take for the market to adjust? You mentioned that these effects are typically short-term bumps — what does that look like in practical terms?
Schulman: The timeline for market adjustment depends on several factors — how clearly defined the tariffs are, when they take effect, what industries they impact, and how large the tariff amounts are. Once those factors are clear, the market can begin adjusting. However, if tariffs are uncertain — for example if retaliatory tariffs are announced but it is unclear which industries will be targeted — that delays market reactions.
This uncertainty forces companies to make short-term strategic decisions, such as stockpiling inventory or delaying product launches until tariff policies are clarified. This can cause economic adjustments to stretch over several quarters, sometimes up to seven quarters. However, businesses can adapt more efficiently once tariffs are announced and implemented. At that point, corporate management can navigate the new conditions, and most adjustments take place within one to four quarters, depending on supply chain flexibility.
Even if companies shift their manufacturing strategies, prices often stabilize when those changes take effect. As a result, from a market reaction and economic impact perspective, most tariff-related adjustments occur within the first one to four quarters.
Jacobsen: How should institutional and retail investors adjust their portfolios to capitalize on opportunities or mitigate risks related to tariffs?
Schulman: It depends on how aggressive the portfolio strategy is. If investors are risk-averse, they may want to exit industries that tariffs, such as manufacturing, agriculture, or retail, could significantly impact. However, this approach involves a degree of speculation since it is never entirely clear whether tariffs will be implemented or are merely a negotiation tactic.
On the other hand, if investors are aggressive, they might buy into industries most affected by tariffs — such as manufacturing, agriculture, or retail — anticipating that market fear will drive prices down, creating attractive entry points. This strategy is based on the idea that eventually, market conditions will correct, and the initial fear-driven selloff will subside.
From an investment standpoint, the right strategy depends on whether someone is highly aggressive or conservative. However, to some extent, investing during tariff uncertainty remains a guessing game — investors do not always know what will be announced or how severe the tariff levels will be.
Jacobsen: To what extent can tariffs influence domestic innovation? Is that a factor that could be considered when implementing tariffs?
Schulman: Innovation is difficult to predict. You could argue that tariffs spur innovation. That is what we have seen in China with DeepSeek AI. It was not exactly a tariff but an outright restriction on selling advanced AI chips to China. As a result, China developed what appears to be a brilliant and less expensive workaround — which DeepSeek is now proving to be successful.
Tariffs, at their core, function as a tax or a restriction. I am repeating myself on the tax aspect, but fundamentally, tariffs act as barriers. Restrictions can accelerate innovation rather than slow it down. The assumption behind restricting AI chips to China was to hinder their progress — that was the intent of the U.S. government. However, in practice, it has fueled innovation instead. In this sense, tariffs and restrictions can be a catalyst for substitutes and workarounds.
That said, tariffs that shield domestic industries can also reduce competitive pressures, and competition is a major driver of innovation. Governments sometimes impose tariffs to protect and nurture an industry, but companies become complacent if these protections remain too long. Without the challenge of foreign competition, firms may feel less urgency to invest in R&D, leading to slower technological progress.
In short, tariffs can work well as temporary protection, giving companies the breathing room to make long-term investments. However, historically, reduced competition over time tends to stifle innovation, ultimately making industries less competitive in the global market.
Jacobsen: What is the role of tariffs in shaping domestic economic policy?
Schulman: Tariffs are primarily used to protect or incubate and nurture emerging industries by influencing trade relationships. They can encourage economic self-sufficiency in key sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing, or technology. That is one way they shape domestic economic policy.
Additionally, tariffs can offset trade imbalances, protect jobs, and support domestic producers. Politically, these measures often help win votes since protecting local industries resonates with voters and policymakers alike. However, the long-term consequences of tariffs include higher consumer prices, reduced market competition, strained diplomatic relations, and potential retaliatory tariffs from other nations. We may be seeing that unfold now.
Jacobsen: Michael, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Schulman: Sure, happy to help, Scott. I will be in touch.
Tiffany Comprés, a leading international disputes attorney, co-chairs the Pierson Ferdinand International Disputes and Practices group. With extensive experience representing U.S. and international companies in arbitration and litigation, she specializes in the complex legal terrain of agriculture, food, logistics, distribution, heavy machinery, and energy. Among just 51 attorneys board-certified in International Law by the Florida Bar, Comprés has earned recognition as a rising star in her field.
Her expertise in global trade law—particularly in frameworks like the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA)—positions her as a crucial voice on the legal and dispute resolution challenges that businesses face in an increasingly volatile trade environment.
Amid mounting tariff uncertainty, Comprés underscores the need for businesses to rethink contract terms and compliance strategies. She examines the World Trade Organization’s weakening enforcement mechanisms, the role of Incoterms in cost allocation, and the escalating risks of trade wars. Additionally, she highlights the legal ambiguities surrounding presidential tariff authority and the resulting surge in arbitration cases. As global trade governance remains in flux, businesses must navigate a landscape of shifting policies and unpredictable economic conditions—where missteps can have profound financial and legal consequences.
(Pierson Ferdinand LLP)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today. How do reciprocal tariffs impact international trade relations and global market dynamics?
Tiffany Comprés: I’m a lawyer, so I can only speak to that in a limited fashion. But certainly, they have broad impacts.
For example, consider steel and aluminum tariffs. A tariff on those products has effects across many sectors of the economy. The company importing the product will either absorb the cost or pass it down to consumers. Suppose the U.S. imposes tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, for example. In that case, the concern is that American manufacturers using those materials will face higher costs, which could lead to higher consumer prices.
As a response, Canada could impose counter-tariffs—a reciprocal measure that affects U.S. exports to Canada. This kind of tariff escalation can create ongoing disputes, with tariffs increasing or changing continuously. It can also extend beyond the initial products targeted, affecting other sectors of the economy.
And that’s just in a bilateral trade relationship. Regarding multilateral trade relationships, particularly in the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, reciprocal tariffs can trigger broader disputes. With Trump proposing reciprocal tariffs, the risk is that multiple countries could impose retaliatory measures, leading to widespread trade disruptions.
Historically, trade wars have had severe consequences. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which imposed high import tariffs, led to significant retaliatory tariffs from other nations. This exacerbated the Great Depression by reducing global trade.
Jacobsen: What legal challenges do reciprocal tariffs present for cross-border transactions?
Comprés: Several. I have clients calling me, asking what they should plan for.
In my practice, I work with many importers and exporters of fresh fruits and vegetables—products that typically do not have tariffs due to trade agreements like NAFTA (now USMCA). If reciprocal tariffs are applied unpredictably, businesses that rely on established pricing models and supply chains could face significant disruptions.
Legal challenges include:
Contract disputes: If a tariff is suddenly imposed, existing contracts may not account for the additional costs, which can lead to litigation between suppliers and buyers.
Compliance with international trade agreements: Companies must navigate whether tariffs violate agreements under the WTO, USMCA, or bilateral treaties.
Supply chain restructuring: Businesses may need to shift suppliers or renegotiate contracts, which can lead to further legal complications.
Ultimately, reciprocal tariffs introduce uncertainty, and uncertainty is a risk in trade law.
So this is an entirely new game for this industry. Companies need to set up their accounts to pay tariffs, which they are not used to. They need to start factoring that into their operations. Can they absorb the cost?
How do they shift the cost? In international trade, there are terms called Incoterms, which serve as standardized contractual guidelines for assigning responsibilities between buyers and sellers. Incoterms do not decide anything on their own—rather, the parties involved in the transaction agree on an Incoterm, which then governs key responsibilities like insurance, freight costs, and, importantly, who is responsible for paying tariffs.
One thing I expect companies to do now is start reviewing their contracts carefully. Many terms they previously took for granted—because they never had to worry about tariffs—are now becoming critical points of negotiation.
For example, a common Incoterm is FOB (Free on Board), which means responsibility for the product transfers at the port of export. Under this arrangement, the importer is typically responsible for paying the tariffs. However, suppose a company shifts to a Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) term, where responsibility stays with the exporter. In that case, the exporter must cover the tariffs.
Sometimes, businesses do not pay close attention to these details because Incoterms are often represented in contracts by just three-letter abbreviations. Suppose companies have repeatedly used the same template agreements without considering the tariff implications. In that case, they may need to re-evaluate their contract structures. Otherwise, this could slip under the radar until someone realizes, “Wait, maybe we should change that.” Renegotiating contracts may become necessary.
I also advise clients to diversify their sourcing as much as possible to spread tariff risk. Of course, not all products can be sourced from multiple places. In agriculture, for instance, certain crops are available only in specific regions at certain times of the year. In the United States, we expect to have mangoes year-round, even though they naturally grow only during certain seasons. This demand creates additional trade complexities when tariffs are introduced.
My biggest concern is that this could lead to an ongoing cycle of tariff escalations, in which one country raises tariffs, another responds, and the cycle continues indefinitely.
The second concern is that this is the broadest application of reciprocal tariffs we have ever seen. Historically, reciprocal tariffs have been implemented on specific products or sectors. However, in the February 13 memorandum outlining the Fair and Reciprocal Trade Plan, the definition of “reciprocity” is far-reaching. It suggests that tariffs should be matched product by product, country by country.
For example, if France imposes a 10% tariff on U.S. cars, then under this framework, the U.S. would match it with a 10% tariff on French cars—instead of the current 2.5% tariff. This shift fundamentally changes trade relations and could lead to widespread retaliatory measures from trading partners.
But the memo describes reciprocity in a much broader sense than just matching tariffs. It talks not only about the actual tariffs applied but also about other trade barriers, such as taxes, regulations, subsidies, and currency policies that affect trade terms. That’s a very broad scope.
The memo also sets a 180-day turnaround time for presenting recommendations to the president. However, it’s unclear whether this means actual tariff numbers must be determined within that time. If so, that would be an incredibly tight deadline.
Given the significantly reduced federal workforce, the ability to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth analysis in such a short time seems unrealistic. I don’t see how they can do this properly without cutting corners. The administrative burden alone is going to be enormous.
This presents challenges not only in implementation but also in enforcement. For example, one of the earlier executive orders aimed to eliminate the de minimis exception. The de minimis rule allows low-value shipments, such as small online purchases under $800, to enter the U.S. without duties. The reason for this rule is largely administrative efficiency—it would be a logistical nightmare to process duties on every single small package.
However, after the rule was eliminated, it didn’t last long. The U.S. does not have enough customs officers to inspect every package and assess duties. Now, with reciprocal tariffs, we are asking customs officials to determine duty rates for every country—a monumental task.
If eliminating the de minimis exception failed due to staffing shortages, I don’t see how this plan can be effectively enforced. Other countries frequently change their tariffs, so this is not just a one-time adjustment.
If we’re serious about maintaining this reciprocal tariff policy, then every time another country adjusts its tariffs, regulations, or subsidies, the U.S. would need to respond. This would add a constant regulatory burden to an already overburdened system.
(Pat Whelen/Unsplash)
Jacobsen: Initially, several countries set a February 1 deadline for implementing these tariffs. However, negotiations—particularly with Mexico and Canada—led to a last-minute extension. Was this extension driven by a legitimate policy rationale, or was it more about optics?
Some reports suggest it was largely a public relations move. Certain agreements that emerged during negotiations involved actions already in the pipeline but were reframed as part of the bargaining process. Regardless, the outcome was a temporary, one-month delay in the tariff deadline. Yet, the fundamental uncertainties remain: How will this policy be implemented? Is it truly enforceable? And how will businesses navigate the instability?
From a legal standpoint, when a February 1 deadline looms for tariffs at a dramatic, double-digit rate, how do legal scholars begin to assess the implications? And what happens when that deadline is abruptly extended by a month? As you pointed out, when a major policy shift is imminent, every detail is scrutinized with heightened urgency.
Comprés: The first and most fundamental legal question is: under what authority is the president implementing these tariffs?
The president used a different legal strategy with those particular tariffs—invoking his emergency powers.
His justification was based on national security concerns, specifically tying it to the drug trade and fentanyl trafficking. That rationale made much more sense in the case of Mexico than it did for Canada.
There’s a significant disparity in the volume of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border versus the Mexican border. I have some figures here—hold on.
Here we go: 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the Canadian border last year and 22,000 pounds came through Mexico.
So, using fentanyl trafficking as the legal basis for tariffs was far more justifiable for Mexico than for Canada.
However, my concern with reciprocal tariffs is different. I don’t think the date change for the Mexico-Canada tariffs is legally significant because of the legal authority under which they were imposed. Since the legal basis is emergency powers, a one-month delay does not fundamentally change the lawfulness of the tariffs.
I’m not deeply immersed in the specific scholarly debates on that particular point, so there may be other perspectives. However, once the president invokes emergency powers to impose tariffs, the exact deadline is not necessarily a major legal issue.
But with reciprocal tariffs, is it a different legal question? The legal foundation for reciprocal tariffs is far less clear.
With Mexico-Canada tariffs, even though the scope of the president’s power under emergency authority is debatable, the precedent for using it exists. But reciprocal tariffs raise a completely different question:
Does the president even have the legal authority to impose them?
Trade policy is explicitly assigned to Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Congress holds the power to regulate tariffs and foreign trade. So, does the president need congressional approval?
Maybe.
A possible legal argument under Section 338 of the Tariff Act allows the president to impose new and additional duties on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. exports.
However, this provision has never been used as the president proposes. It was not originally intended as a tool for broad reciprocal tariff implementation.
So, the legal justification for reciprocal tariffs remains an open question—and we could very well see legal challenges if they are implemented without Congressional approval.
It’s a clear WTO violation.
Under WTO rules, we must maintain our tariffs within pre-agreed rate levels. This also contradicts the Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle under which the U.S. has operated since 1923.
The MFN principle ensures that U.S. tariffs on imports remain identical for all WTO member countries, except in specific cases—such as goods deemed unfairly traded (e.g., anti-dumping duties). Imports from free trade partners with whom we have separate agreements.
As a result, most countries lowered their tariffs to participate in free trade, leading to global economic integration. This movement toward trade liberalization was formally memorialized in 1934 through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.
However, the WTO has been severely weakened, largely because the U.S. blocked the appointment of appellate judges to its Dispute Settlement Body.
Without a functioning dispute resolution system, WTO rules become unenforceable.
If a country violates WTO rules but has no legal mechanism to resolve disputes, then what is the point of the system? It creates a frail and weakened position for global trade governance. This breakdown—combined with the proliferation of free trade agreements (FTAs)—has led countries to negotiate trade deals outside the WTO framework.
That’s why we now have regional and bilateral agreements like USMCA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). There are now thousands of these trade agreements in place. Some are bilateral (between two countries) and some are multilateral (between multiple nations).
This parallel trade system has developed for nearly a century. Still, the rule of law governing international trade has become increasingly fragile.
This shift is largely due to the U.S. reconsidering its role as the global leader—not just diplomatically and politically but also in trade.
So, trade, diplomacy, and global leadership are deeply interconnected. They are not separate issues—they all influence one another.
Jacobsen: In today’s global economy, some companies operate strictly within domestic markets, while others engage in cross-border trade. But we also live in an era dominated by multinational corporations, where jurisdictional complexities can arise even in seemingly straightforward bilateral trade relationships.
You mentioned earlier that regulatory challenges emerge even in cases involving just two nations—such as a shipping vessel moving between Canada and the U.S. or Norway and the U.S. When that vessel enters international waters, its cargo falls outside the direct jurisdiction of any single country. How does that legal limbo shape trade regulations?
Expanding this to a broader scale, in a multinational or multilateral trade context—particularly for multinational corporations—how do tariffs add further layers of complexity? Do they make international trade law more difficult to navigate, or do they introduce new regulatory risks that companies must anticipate?
Comprés: Well, to give you just one example of how tariffs can disrupt global supply chains:
Most of my clients deal in fruits and vegetables. It’s one product—a mango or a bunch of grapes. You grow it, and that’s it. There’s no complex manufacturing process and no 25,000 components like those in a car or an iPhone. Now, think about something like an iPhone or a car.
A single device or machine has components sourced from many different countries. Some components might be manufactured in Country A, but the fabrication process could occur in Country B.
So, components come from 10 different countries, are assembled in an 11th country, and then sent to a 12th country for final integration before reaching the U.S.
That’s when things get complicated.
(Chuttersnap/Unsplash)
Jacobsen: How do tariffs apply in these cases?
Comprés: A product’s country of origin determines the tariff rate under U.S. tariff rules.
The country of origin is where it was grown for simple goods, like oranges. If you repackage the orange, it doesn’t matter—it’s still an orange, and its country of origin remains the same.
However, tariff classification follows the substantial transformation rule for complex manufactured goods.
This means that the final country where the most significant transformation occurs is considered the country of origin—not necessarily where the raw materials or components were sourced. I’ve been advising clients who deal with complex products to rethink their supply chains.
They should strategically restructure operations so that the substantial transformation occurs in a more favourable location with lower tariffs.
However, companies can’t easily relocate their factories if tariff policies keep changing.
It’s not like picking up and moving a store—it’s a massive logistical and financial challenge to close a factory in Country A and open another in Country B.
This ties back to your earlier question about the 30-day delay. The greater impact isn’t purely legal—it’s about economic stability. Business thrives on predictability. When expectations are clear, companies can manage their finances, plan investments, and forecast revenue.
However, tariff uncertainty creates a chaotic environment. Companies hesitate to act, delaying new product launches and postponing investments because the return on investment becomes unpredictable.
They don’t know what tariffs to pay, making profit margins uncertain. And in some cases, tariffs can be so high that they function as a de facto tax on companies.
Jacobsen: How can dispute resolution mechanisms under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) address tariff-related conflicts that, from what you’re saying, maybe inevitable?
Comprés: I’m fairly certain there will definitely be some of that. However, the CISG doesn’t have its dispute resolution mechanism, like an arbitration system. Instead, it provides rules on contract breaches and contract interpretation.
One key legal issue—which may be a bit dry but is important—is how the CISG handles contract interpretation differently from U.S. contract law.
In the United States, contract law follows the “four corners rule.”
Courts don’t look beyond the document if a contract is clear. The only time outside evidence is allowed is when the contract is ambiguous and its meaning cannot be resolved from the text alone.
But under the CISG, there’s no such rule.
Parties can introduce external negotiations and conversations to help interpret the contract. This means that a company could try to argue that an agreed-upon trade term—like FOB (Free on Board)—was never actually intended that way.
Would that argument hold up? I don’t think so. If a contract has always been used a certain way, the counterargument would be that usage and custom determine its meaning.
That said, I wouldn’t rule out companies trying to use CISG rules to avoid high and damaging tariffs. While unlikely to succeed, some unique contexts might allow it to work.
We are already seeing a huge increase in international arbitration over the past 10 to 20 years. That trend is only going to continue.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing state-to-state arbitration, where countries challenge tariffs under trade agreements like the USMCA. For example, China has already filed a WTO complaint over tariffs.
Jacobsen: Could that case move forward?
Comprés: It might pass the first stage, but it won’t reach appeal—or, if it does, it will sit in limbo indefinitely. The reason? The WTO Appellate Body isn’t functioning because the U.S. has blocked the appointment of judges.
So, even if China wins in the first instance, the U.S. can appeal, and the case will remain unresolved because there is no appeals court to hear it. This is something we will see more of as trade tensions continue.
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate your time, Tiffany. It was nice to meet you and thank you for your expertise.
Comprés: Oh, you’re welcome! It’s a nerdy topic but a good one.
Dan O’Dowd has built a career on designing software that never fails—a rare claim in an era of digital vulnerabilities. A leading authority in secure systems, O’Dowd developed the operating software for some of the world’s most mission-critical projects, including Boeing’s 787s, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Fighter Jets, the Boeing B1-B Intercontinental Nuclear Bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Since graduating from the California Institute of Technology in 1976, he has pioneered safety-critical and unhackable software, shaping the future of embedded security across aerospace, defense, and other high-stakes industries.
Then there is Elon Musk, a figure whose public image is a tangle of contradictions. He is a relentless workaholic, a self-styled genius who reportedly grinds 100-hour weeks, sleeps in factories, and pushes human endurance in pursuit of his technological ambitions. He is also a family man, though his personal life—marked by multiple ex-wives and at least 14 children—suggests a far more complicated reality. And, somehow, amid running billion-dollar enterprises, he is an elite gamer, ranking highly in titles such as Diablo IV.
These contradictions raise a fundamental question: How does a man supposedly working 100-hour weeks also have the time to master competitive gaming? If his schedule is consumed by engineering and innovation, where do his children fit in? The narratives Musk cultivates—hardest-working CEO, devoted father, elite gamer—appear mutually exclusive, yet they exist in parallel, feeding into the enigma that defines his public persona.
Critics argue that Musk’s self-mythologizing is no accident. Reports suggest he paid gamers to inflate his rankings, undermining his credibility in the gaming world. His leadership, too, is marked by inconsistencies—while he is celebrated as a hands-on innovator, much of his company’s operations are managed by others. His influence is undeniable, but whether he is a revolutionary visionary or a master of illusion remains an open question.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Since you’re approaching this from the perspective of someone scrutinizing Musk’s personality, let’s begin with one of the more improbable claims—his supposed prowess in competitive gaming. Achieving a world-class ranking in any high-level game requires an extraordinary investment of time, skill, and dedication. Musk has repeatedly boasted about his standing among elite players, but just weeks ago, someone uncovered the truth—and exposed exactly what he was doing.
Dan O’Dowd: Here’s what happened: Musk wasn’t ranking up through skill. Instead, he was paying people to grind for him, boosting his stats so he could pretend to be at an elite level. This was exposed when he live-streamed himself playing Path of Exile, a game where strategy and mechanics matter deeply.
A real top player was watching the stream and immediately realized something was off. Musk was making basic mistakes, failing to execute simple mechanics, and missing obvious strategic choices. The guy watching thought, Wait for a second—how could someone rank this high be such a noob? He literally called Musk a noob on the spot. Someone couldn’t reach that level of the game and still not know how to play.
That’s when people really started digging. Soon, the gaming community laughed, spread the footage, and dissected his gameplay. More expert players looked into it, and another well-respected figure in the gaming world stepped in, confirming what was obvious—Elon Musk was cheating.
The truth came out: Musk had a team of people playing for him, grinding the game to boost his ranking. Then, once they levelled him up, they would inject him into high-ranked matches, making it look like he had earned his spot. But when he had to play on stream, he obviously had no idea what he was doing.
At first, Musk denied everything. He tried to deflect, ignore, and laugh it off. But the pressure kept mounting, and the evidence was too obvious to ignore. Finally, in the last few days, he admitted it. He was caught and had no choice but to confess: Yes, I have people play the game for me.
This was yet another hit to his credibility. Another segment of the public realized—that he was lying about everything. What is the entire gaming narrative he built around himself? Fake. He wasn’t spending 40 or 80 hours a week playing video games. He wasn’t grinding his way to the top. He wasn’t an elite player. He just paid people to make him look like one.
And that’s how he operates. This gaming controversy is just another example of a pattern: massive deception. Musk presents himself as a genius, workaholic, gamer, businessman, father, and visionary—but when you examine the details, so much of it is fake. And now, the gaming industry has fully exposed that part of the illusion.
So that’s one contradiction off the list. The “Musk the Gamer” myth? Completely debunked.
So we don’t have to worry about that one. The gamer myth? Debunked. Done. But what about the family man narrative?
Musk presents himself as someone who loves his kids. Yet one of his children despises him—hates him to the core. The others? We rarely hear about them. The only child we consistently see is little X, his now four-year-old son. And Musk takes him everywhere.
X is there whenever Musk is at business meetings, industry events, or gatherings with billionaires. The child sits on his lap, rides on his shoulders, and is always in the room. But let’s be real—Musk isn’t caring for him. There’s always a nanny nearby. The kid isn’t there because Musk is playing doting father. He’s there for another reason.
We don’t have direct evidence, but there are two main theories. The first is that Little X is his emotional support child. Musk is one of the most hated people in the world—ridiculed, criticized, and constantly under fire. Having a child literally attached to him provides comfort. It gives him something pure that doesn’t judge him—a source of unconditional love in a world where so many people despise him.
The second theory is more cynical: X is a human shield. If you watch Musk, the kid is always physically close to him—sitting beside him in meetings, on his lap, on his shoulders, in his arms. Musk knows that even his most extreme critics will hesitate to go after him too aggressively if he’s always holding his child. It creates a visual buffer. It humanizes him. It’s a form of optics management.
Beyond X, though, Musk doesn’t seem to spend meaningful time with his other children. He is estranged from at least one, has little public connection to the others, and appears to have no real relationships with his ex-wives or former girlfriends. As of now, he’s officially single.
Musk has fathered at least 13 children—the confirmed number—but it could be more. And one of those mothers is an employee at Neuralink, Shivon Zilis, a high-ranking executive at his company.
Then there’s Grimes. According to Isaacson’s biography, Musk had twins with Grimes. But here’s the kicker—while she was in the hospital giving birth, Shivon Zilis was in the same hospital giving birth to another set of Musk’s twins. And Grimes had no idea.
Family man? Right.
Of course, there’s his romantic history. He has burned through wives, girlfriends, and affairs. Amber Heard? That was a toxic disaster. Poor Johnny Depp. The absolute chaos of that relationship was brutal. Musk’s involvement with Heard? Who knows how deep that really went?
Oh, and then there’s Google co-founder Sergey Brin. The rumour that Musk slept with Brin’s wife exploded. Both Musk and Brin denied it, of course. But the fallout? Brin and Musk didn’t speak for years. Whether or not it actually happened, the damage was real.
So, family man? Not exactly. More like serial relationship wreckage.
We don’t know if that story about him working 100 hours weekly is true. But what does he actually do?
Is he in the office, grinding away, running his companies? No. He’s in Brazil. He’s at the World Cup. He’s at the Super Bowl. He’s at the Met Gala. He’s at every major global event where billionaires and world leaders gather.
I don’t recall seeing him at Davos, but he must have been there. Maybe not. But whatever—he’s everywhere else. He’s not in an office working. He’s in town, living the billionaire lifestyle and meeting with powerful people worldwide.
He was just in Brazil, holding talks with the Prime Minister of Italy. There are photos of them together, and she looks completely smitten—open-mouthed, adoring. He was cozying up to Macron, though that didn’t last. He eventually insulted France and burned that bridge. Oh, right—he literally accused Macron of being a Nazi because someone found a photo of Macron raising his hand in a certain way. That’s where Musk is spending his time.
He isn’t grinding away at his companies. He’s living the life of a playboy billionaire, playing ambassador, diplomat, emperor—whatever title fits. He’s an emperor, yes, but possibly an emperor without clothes.
Musk used to spend time at his companies—10 years ago. He claimed he slept on the floor of the factory during Tesla’s production crisis, but people who were actually there said nope. He made that up, too. It sounded good—like he was grinding, working hard, suffering alongside the workers. But in reality, he wasn’t there.
Elon Musk at Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting.
Jacobsen: So, who runs the companies if Musk is barely involved?
O’Dowd: At SpaceX, it’s Gwynne Shotwell. She runs the show. She handles everything. Musk shows up to do the countdowns for the rocket launches, but she’s the one making it all happen. SpaceX works because it has competent leadership.
At Tesla, day-to-day operations are more unclear. Musk had a guy—Tom Zhu, who ran Tesla’s China operations and was supposed to take over a bigger role in the U.S. But that didn’t quite happen the way people expected.
And what about Full Self-Driving (FSD)? Ashok Elluswamy runs that department, but Musk doesn’t. The truth is, these companies don’t actually need him. This brings us to the biggest myth: Is Musk a super-genius?
People love to say he is. They call him a once-in-a-generation mind, a visionary, a real-life Tony Stark. But when you hear him talk about something you know a lot about, you realize…he’s an idiot.
This is precisely what happened with the video game scandal. When Musk talks about something you don’t know, he sounds smart. But when he talks about something you do know, you suddenly realize this guy has no idea what he’s talking about.
Everybody thought Musk was a brilliant guy. But after the gaming scandal, the real experts in that community saw him for what he was: a complete idiot. And not just an ordinary novice who lacks experience—this was sheer stupidity.
He was making it up. And this isn’t just limited to gaming—it’s everything. He’s not a rocket scientist. He doesn’t have an engineering degree. He’s not any of the things he wants you to believe he is. He wants you to think he’s a brilliant engineer who designs all this groundbreaking technology. But he doesn’t design anything.
Take SpaceX, for example. One of his only documented design decisions? He changed the shape of the Starship rocket’s nose—not for aerodynamics or engineering reasons—but because it wasn’t pointy enough. And why did he want it pointier? Because of a scene from The Dictator, the satirical Sacha Baron Cohen movie. That’s literally why he did it. He admitted this himself.
This is how Musk operates. He doesn’t actually know much about anything. He skims a Wikipedia page on a subject, memorizes a few key points, and then enters conversations acting like an expert. In many cases, he does know more than the average person because most people haven’t read the Wikipedia page on that topic. But that’s where his knowledge ends.
He may get briefings from real experts. But his understanding is paper-thin. And the problem? He can’t stop there. He has to keep going. He must sound like he knows more than everyone else in the room. So what does he do? He starts making things up.
If an actual expert happens to be in the room while Musk is going off on one of his nonsense tangents—say, talking about mining water on Mars or some insane chemical reaction that doesn’t make any sense—they’ll call him out. They’ll say, That’s not how that works. And Musk’s response?
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
If the expert pushes back, saying, “Actually, I have a PhD in this field,” Musk doubles down. “Well, you must’ve been in school a long time ago because you missed all the new advancements.” And then he keeps making things up. It’s easy to do. Try it sometime. I wrote 13 papers on this subject, won an award, and conducted groundbreaking research. Who’s going to stop you? That’s what Musk does.
And then there was the infamous Yann LeCun incident. Yann LeCun—one of the most respected AI researchers in the world—got into a Twitter exchange with Musk. And what did Musk do? He tried to correct him. He started making claims about AI research to one of the most decorated AI scientists on the planet.
This is the standard Musk tactic. It doesn’t matter who he’s talking to. All he has to do is say, “But I’m Elon Musk. I have access to the latest research.” And for some reason, people believe him.
Douchebag or visionary? Elon Musk addressing Trump supporters.
Jacobsen: Musk makes things up. What does he do if he loses an argument with an expert?
O’Dowd: He bluffs—throws out some nonsense about a groundbreaking project behind the scenes that nobody knows about.
“I’ve got people at Buffalo University working on this. You wouldn’t know, but they collaborate with MIT and the Sorbonne. They’re about to announce it next week, and it will completely disrupt the industry.”
And what happens? The PhD in the conversation hesitates—because how do you argue against something that supposedly exists but hasn’t been announced yet? That’s the genius of the Musk Bluff. He creates an illusion of superior knowledge, making the expert second-guess. And when they walk away, Musk wins the argument—without ever saying a single true thing.
This is his tactic. It’s bullying but in a specific way. He makes up the wildest, most impossible claims, and when people challenge him, he doubles down.
A million people on Mars? Sure.
A fully severed spinal cord? No problem—we’ll make you walk again.
The blind will see? Done.
The deaf will hear? Of course.
Yes, he literally said all of this. And that brings us to Neuralink.
Neuralink might be their biggest joke. Musk promises it will cure blindness. He says it will make paralyzed people walk again. Does that sound familiar? Because it’s straight out of the Bible. Every 19th-century travelling preacher with a revival tent used the same routine. They’d bring someone in a wheelchair onto the stage—someone who allegedly couldn’t walk for years. The preacher would place his hands on them, say the magic words, and suddenly—they could walk. The blind? Now they could see.
That’s the exact same playbook Musk is using with Neuralink.
And then there’s Optimus. Optimus is going to end poverty. Yes, he actually said that. He claimed that Optimus would handle everything—it would work for us, solve all labor problems, and create a world where everyone gets whatever they want. He even put a number on it: two Optimi per person, a billion robots worldwide, solving every economic problem.
But here’s the issue: What if everyone wants what Musk has?
What if every person on Earth wants a Gulfstream G650 private jet to fly wherever they want, whenever they want? Suddenly, we need 8 billion private jets—but there’s a problem. The law requires two pilots per flight. But wait—those pilots also want their own private jets. The whole system collapses.
This is the absurdity of Musk’s promises. He says these things honestly, and investors throw hundreds of millions—no, billions—of dollars at him. And why? Because he told them a completely preposterous fairy tale—and they believed it.
It’s hilarious. It’s so funny. These things aren’t even serious ideas—they’re jokes. But somehow, they work.
And speaking of jokes—you mentioned the Heil Hitler thing. I’m working on a theory here. Everybody asks, Is Musk a Nazi? Is he this? Is he that? I don’t think he’s any of those things. Oh, and one more thing—I completely forgot to mention: He’s 13 years old.
No, not literally, of course. But mentally, emotionally, socially? His development stopped at 13. Everything he does makes much more sense when you look at it through that lens. His entire personality, obsessions, and antics all point to someone stuck in permanent adolescence.
So, what about the Heil Hitler thing? Yes, it was a Nazi salute. But I don’t think it was because he’s a Nazi. I think he did it for one reason: to see if he could get away with it.
He did it right before the seal of the President of the United States. Standing there, knowing the cameras were rolling, he raised his arm twice. Not just once—twice. He did it once, turned around, and then did it again to the crowd behind him, people he couldn’t see.
Why? Because this is exactly what a 13-year-old would do. A middle schooler trying to be edgy.
This wasn’t about ideology—it was about provocation. He wanted to do something outrageous that would explode in the press, something nobody else could get away with. And he knew he could because he’s the emperor. He operates under a different set of rules.
Anyone else who did that was gone, immediately fired, and cancelled. But Musk understands that he’s untouchable. He wanted to test it like a rebellious teenager to see how far they can push authority before facing consequences.
And guess what? He got away with it.
Sure, it pissed off some people. But then, his team came rushing to his defence. The ADL—an organization supposed to stand against antisemitism—actually defended him. Netanyahu himself came out and exonerated him.
Just think about that for a second. Imagine being able to walk up to a podium in front of the entire world, do a double Nazi salute, and still have powerful institutions defend you. That’s the level of privilege Musk operates with. He could have stripped naked, and it wouldn’t have been as big of a deal.
This was the one thing that should have been career-ending. The one move that no one should be able to walk away from. And yet—here he is.
And let’s not forget—the way he did it. He perfected the salute. Fingers together. The arm extended just right. It was a textbook demonstration. He knew exactly what he was doing. And now? He’s still standing.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about Musk’s use of ketamine and other substances. If I recall correctly, the Don Lemon interview surfaced only after the fact. In that conversation, Lemon was openly critical of Musk, but one of the biggest revelations?
Musk admitted—without hesitation—to using ketamine. He claimed to have a prescription, possibly from a specialist or his regular GP. But that admission immediately raised broader questions. Why is he on ketamine?
What does it reveal about his mental state, his work habits, and the contradictions that define his public persona?
O’Dowd: I don’t have personal knowledge—I’m not there with him. But as you said, Musk himself has admitted to using ketamine. And when you look at his behaviour, it tracks. His mood swings are extreme—he’ll go from euphoric, manic enthusiasm to angry, explosive outbursts in an instant. That kind of volatility is noticeable. But I’ll be honest—I don’t know much about ketamine’s actual effects. I know it’s sometimes called a horse tranquillizer, but it also has real medical uses.
Then there’s his history with other substances. Back in 2018, on The Joe Rogan Experience, he smoked marijuana live on air. That moment went viral, but looking back, it feels more like a stunt than a serious habit. He also used to frequent bars and high-end clubs, indulging in wine and whiskey—casual social drinking, nothing that suggests a dependency. Alcohol doesn’t seem to be an issue for him.
If the ketamine claim is true, then at least he’s claiming it’s prescribed. But it makes you wonder—how much of this is genuine treatment, and how much is self-medication?
And then there’s the bigger question—what about psychedelics? MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD—all of these are being explored for treating depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Did Musk ever dabble in those? And is there a family history of mental health struggles? If there’s a familial link, it adds another layer to this story.
Musk has also used psilocybin to manage his mental state. And when it comes to PTSD and anxiety, Isaacson’s biography paints a revealing picture. There are moments in the book where Musk reportedly shuts down completely.
When things get really bad, he doesn’t just get upset—he becomes catatonic.
One scene in the book describes him lying on the floor of Tesla’s boardroom, unresponsive, when things were falling apart. That’s not just stress—that’s someone mentally collapsing under pressure. But here’s the paradox—every single time
Musk has hit rock bottom, he’s bounced back even higher.
Isaacson describes these cycles as wild oscillations in Musk’s mental state. One moment, he’s in freefall; the next, he’s rising to new heights. It’s like watching someone dance on the edge of destruction, but somehow, he always finds a way out.
Jacobsen: Does that make him resilient? Or does it just mean he’s constantly self-destructing and barely pulling himself back together?
O’Dowd: I have a saying about Musk:
To Elon Musk, words are sounds he makes to convince you to do his bidding.
That’s how he operates. The words don’t mean anything to him. When he says, “I promise,” it’s not a real commitment. It’s just a sound—a tool he uses to manipulate people into action. And that brings us to the final question—does he even believe the things he says?
I’ll give you a million dollars. I love you. Whatever. It doesn’t matter what it is. Whatever it takes to get someone to do what he wants, he’ll say it. But he doesn’t connect those words to meaning. To Musk, words aren’t promises—they’re tools.
He doesn’t see himself as committing to anything. He sees himself as making sounds that cause people to take action. Whether or not someone thinks he made a commitment—that’s not his concern. He got what he wanted in that moment, and that’s all that matters.
And because he’s so confident he can talk out of any situation, he doesn’t worry about the consequences. Sure, he gets into trouble sometimes. But every single time, he also gets out of trouble. So why would he stop? When you know you can say anything to anyone, anytime, and never face real consequences, why would you start caring about truth or integrity? You wouldn’t. That’s exactly where Musk is, which explains much about his operation.
Look at Autonomy Day. Tesla was in desperate financial trouble. So what did Musk do? He pulled together a spectacular story—completely made up—in just a few days and delivered it stone-faced. The entire audience believed every word, no matter how ridiculous it was. Some investors sued Tesla afterward, claiming Musk’s statements were blatant lies designed to manipulate the stock price. But the judge dismissed the lawsuit. Why? Because the judge ruled that no reasonable investor would believe what Elon Musk said. Think about that for a second. The court didn’t say he didn’t lie. The court said his lies were so preposterous that no rational person could have possibly taken them seriously.
And yet…they did believe him. Investors poured billions into Tesla after that speech. The stock soared. Tesla’s valuation hit one trillion dollars. This is his superpower. He says utterly ridiculous things, and people believe him anyway. If you can do that, it’s no surprise you’re the richest man in the world. It’s not even that hard when you’re willing to say anything to anyone at any time to get what you want. Yes, sometimes it backfires. Sometimes it gets him into trouble. But he finds a way to talk his way out of it every single time.
You have to give him credit for that. And after enough of these moments—after escaping every single consequence—what happens? It starts to change your brain. You start believing your own myth. You start thinking maybe you are the emperor. Maybe the law doesn’t apply to you. Because so far, it never has. Every time the legal system tries to hold him accountable, he finds a way to get a judge to throw the case out. Whenever people think, “This time he’s gone too far,” he walks away unscathed.
At some point, you start thinking it’s all a joke. You start thinking you can stand in front of the President’s podium, give a double Nazi salute on national TV, and still walk away untouched. Because so far…he has.
He might have actually reached the point where he believes he can get away with anything, and that’s why he does these things. That’s why he keeps succeeding—because he keeps making people’s promises, and they keep giving him money.
Jacobsen: Then there are the stimulants. Musk has openly discussed his heavy caffeine consumption. But beyond that, he has also admitted to using Ambien (Zolpidem), a prescription sleep aid he reportedly takes regularly.
Of course, there are other speculations—whispers of additional substances. These remain unverified, and I won’t wade into conjecture. Still, the known facts alone raise questions about his reliance on stimulants and sedatives, and what that balance—or imbalance—reveals about his lifestyle, performance, and state of mind.
O’Dowd: But here’s what we do know: Musk has a history of substance use, extreme behaviours, and mood swings. His emotional state fluctuates wildly. When you combine that with what we discussed earlier—his habit of using words as tools to get what he wants—it starts painting a more complete picture.
Then there’s his family. People who know him best have either insinuated or outright claimed that he has no real empathy—or, at the very least, blunted empathy. His mother, for example, once said that his brilliance is overshadowed by his lack of social graces or something to that effect. His father, though? That’s a different story.
Errol Musk—Elon’s father—is still alive, and he gives interviews. But Elon hates him. Musk has publicly called his father a horrible person. So, what do we make of that? Honestly, not much. Because who do you trust? If Elon is a pathological liar, why assume his father is any better? Maybe both of them are unreliable narrators.
I’ve seen a few of Errol Musk’s interviews, but he’s not out there often. His mother, Maye Musk, on the other hand? She’s very active online. She pops up on Twitter regularly, usually in defensive mommy mode, scolding people for saying mean things about her son. It’s always the same: “Why are you attacking my boy? He doesn’t deserve this.” And Musk, in response, is basically like: “Mom, stop embarrassing me. I can handle myself.”
But at the end of the day, his moods are erratic. His behaviour is unhinged. And when you think of him as a 13-year-old trapped in a billionaire’s body, everything makes more sense.
Imagine this: a 13-year-old can deliver a speech to the entire country in front of world leaders, with cameras everywhere. What does he do? He jumps up and down, fidgeting, soaking in the attention. That’s exactly what Musk does. If you compare that to someone like Donald Trump, you will see that Trump enjoys attention. He says outrageous things. But you don’t see him literally bouncing up and down like an overexcited teenager.
Even in Trump’s little dance routine—where he does the awkward YMCA shuffle—his feet never leave the floor. Musk, on the other hand? He jumps, throws his arms in the air, spins around. It’s juvenile. Most adults don’t act like that. If you just won the Super Bowl, maybe you get to go nuts. But in normal adult settings? You don’t behave like that.
Musk never advanced past that stage. His social training stopped at 13; you can see it in everything he does.
And then there’s Dustin Moskovitz, the Facebook co-founder. He had a moment of realization when he saw Musk’s entire Tesla operation for what it really was. He finally connected the dots and said, “This is Enron. This is an outright fraud.”
And when Musk responded? Oh, you have to see it. The tweet he sent back? It was peak Musk—so immature, juvenile, and 13-year-old-level petty. A typical 11-year-old wouldn’t be sophisticated enough to pull it off, but a 13-year-old?
That’s Musk in a nutshell. A 13-year-old with unlimited money, unlimited power, and zero accountability.
A 15-year-old would be embarrassed by this kind of behaviour. A real adult would never do it. No one would. Yet here we have the CEO of a public company, the richest man in the world, the head of multiple trillion-dollar corporations—and what is he doing? What is he posting on Twitter? The kind of juvenile, impulsive nonsense that no professional executive in history would ever think to engage in.
Christine Drake, Manager of Ecological Corridors and Heritage Rivers at Parks Canada, has spent more than 17 years shaping conservation policy across the country. Her expertise spans ecosystem preservation, the establishment of protected areas, and national park management. With a Master’s degree in Forestry from the University of Toronto, Drake now leads efforts to expand and safeguard wildlife corridors—critical pathways that help species navigate increasingly fragmented landscapes.
In this conversation, Drake discusses Wildlife Corridors Canada and the pivotal role Parks Canada plays in ecological conservation. The agency has committed $1.3 million over two years to fund corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Nationally, $7 million is being allocated across 11 projects, with NGOs contributing an additional $7.5 million—bringing the total investment to $14.5 million.
Parks Canada has pinpointed 23 national priority areas for conservation, with 10 already receiving direct support in seven provinces. Drake explains that funding allocations vary by project. For instance, the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute is working to protect 300 acres of vital habitat. More details on these initiatives can be found on the Parks Canada website.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Canada is a vast country with significant green space, making this an important topic to emphasize. Thank you for joining me today.
Christine Drake: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: For the ecological corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, how much funding is being contributed by Parks Canada?
Drake: In Nova Scotia, Parks Canada is contributing $495,000 over the 2024–25 and 2025–26 fiscal years. In New Brunswick, Parks Canada is contributing $826,142 over the same two fiscal years. Altogether, this amounts to just over $1.3 million over two years for the two projects.
Jacobsen: How much inland water and land will Canada’s government commit to conserving by 2030?
Drake: That question is best answered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, as they lead that file for the Government of Canada. The same applies to your next question.
Jacobsen: How many acres will the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute conserve via voluntary stewardship mechanisms?
Drake: The Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute aims to conserve at least 300 acres as part of its project through voluntary mechanisms, including conservation easements and land acquisitions.
Jacobsen: What is the total funding allocated to support ecological corridor projects across Canada?
Drake: Over $7 million is being contributed to 11 projects to support on-the-ground ecological corridor and connectivity work across the country. Additionally, environmental non-profits and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will provide an extra $7.5 million through their own funding and partnerships. In total, this brings the investment in ecological corridors in Canada to nearly $14.5 million.
Jacobsen: Are there any noteworthy NGOs involved in these projects?
Drake: The two most recently announced organizations are Birds Canada and the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. A previous news release outlines all the other lead organizations receiving funding, which I can share with you.
Jacobsen: How many national priority areas has Parks Canada identified for ecological corridors?
Drake: Parks Canada has identified and mapped 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These are areas where ecological corridors are most urgently needed in Canada to conserve or restore connectivity. Improving or maintaining ecological connectivity in these priority areas will greatly benefit biodiversity conservation and help species and ecosystems adapt to climate change.
The priority areas for ecological corridors were identified over the last couple of years in collaboration with a diverse range of partners, experts, stakeholders, and the public. This process involved using national-scale data and several scientific assessment methods. An interactive map and more information about each of the priority areas for ecological corridors are available on the Parks Canada website.
Jacobsen: How many national priority areas will ground-based connectivity advance through approximately $7 million in contributions?
Drake: Funding from the National Program for Ecological Corridors supports on-the-ground work in 10 of the 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These projects are located in seven provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
Projects will advance ecological corridors in areas identified as nationally important for conserving or restoring ecological connectivity and strengthening the network of protected and conserved areas and natural habitats.
Jacobsen: Christine, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Since its launch in 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Broadband Fund has pledged more than $730 million to expand Internet access in over 270 communities, bridging the digital divide for households and essential institutions. Most recently, the CRTC allocated $14 million to CityWest Cable to construct 250 kilometers of fibre infrastructure across British Columbia and Yukon, a move that community leaders say will enhance local businesses and improve access to healthcare.
As the initiative evolves, the CRTC is refining its approach to better support Indigenous communities, introducing an Indigenous Stream designed to strengthen connectivity in historically underserved regions. Additional funding and policy updates are expected in the near future, signaling a continued push toward digital equity across Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which regions are targeted by CRTC’s new fibre Internet initiative?
CRTC: The CRTC is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. The CRTC holds public consultations on telecommunications and broadcasting matters and makes decisions based on the public record. Canadians need access to reliable, affordable, and high-quality Internet and cellphone services for every part of their daily lives.
Jacobsen: How is the CRTC facilitating high-speed fibre Internet?
CRTC: In 2019, the CRTC launched the Broadband Fund to help connect rural, remote, and Indigenous communities across Canada. Through its Broadband Fund, the CRTC contributes to a broad effort by federal, provincial, and territorial governments to address the gap in connectivity in underserved areas across Canada, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities. The CRTC has held three calls for applications to its Broadband Fund, which resulted in over 700 applications. To date, the Broadband Fund has committed over $730 million to improve high-speed Internet and cellphone services for over 270 communities, connecting essential institutions such as schools, band offices and health care and community centres. This represents over 47,000 households and over 630 kilometres of major transportation roads. Further details are available on our website.
Jacobsen: What is the total funding allocated for this project?
CRTC: Most recently, on January 30, 2025, the CRTC committed over $14 million to CityWest Cable and Telephone Corp. to build approximately 250 kilometres of new transport fibre infrastructure to bring high-capacity transport services to the communities of Jade City and Good Hope Lake (Dease River) in British Columbia, as well as Upper Liard in the Yukon. The project will improve access to reliable and high-quality Internet service.
Jacobsen: What is the scope of the infrastructure development? Since 2019, how has the CRTC’s Broadband Fund impacted rural, remote, and Indigenous communities?
CRTC: The project received support from the impacted communities. Letters of support emphasized the positive impact the project will have on daily life in these regions, including new opportunities for local businesses and improved access to health care.
A summary of these letters was included in Telecom Decision 2025-30:
CityWest provided evidence of direct notification to all affected communities and received letters of support, including from the 3Nations Society, a partnership between Tahltan, Kaska, and Taku River Tlingit First Nations (the Kaska Nation is made up of five Kaska First Nations, which cover two of the affected communities), and the Premier of the Yukon. The 3Nations Society stated that collaborative efforts with CityWest have fostered a sense of shared purpose, and it anticipates that this collective support will significantly contribute to the success of the project.
The Premier of the Yukon noted that dependable high-speed Internet can open new economic and social possibilities for Yukoners and support healthy, vibrant, and sustainable communities.
For further information on their views, we encourage you to reach out to them directly.
The CRTC continues to assess Broadband Fund applications and will make more funding announcements in the coming months.
Jacobsen: What benefits have the impacted communities highlighted in letters of support for this project?
CRTC: The CRTC is also continuing to make improvements to the Broadband Fund. In December 2024, the CRTC announced its first decision to improve the fund and to help advance reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. During its consultation, the CRTC received comments from 75 groups and individuals, including consumer groups, Indigenous organizations and governments, and Internet and cellphone service providers. As part of this decision, the CRTC is working to better support Indigenous applicants and communities by providing funding to build skills and support Indigenous-owned networks. The CRTC is also requiring applicants to engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities and provide proof of consent from any Indigenous community where they plan to build infrastructure. The CRTC will issue more decisions as part of its review and will launch the Indigenous Stream of the Broadband Fund later this year.
Jacobsen: What are forthcoming initiatives or policy revisions, including the Indigenous Stream of the Broadband Fund?
CRTC: As part of its broader efforts to improve Internet and cellphone services across Canada, the CRTC is taking action to help ensure residents of the Far North have access to reliable and affordable Internet services. The CRTC also created an Indigenous Relations Team to support Indigenous participation in its proceedings and ensure the distinct nature and lived experiences of Indigenous peoples are considered across the CRTC’s work.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Mandisa Thomas is one of the most outspoken voices in America’s secular movement. As the founder and president of Black Nonbelievers, she has dedicated her work to challenging the stigma surrounding nonbelief and amplifying the voices of African American atheists. Born and raised in New York City, Thomas grew up in a largely secular household, though she was surrounded by family members who adhered to various faiths. Her exposure to Christianity, Black Nationalism, Islam, and a range of world mythologies fostered an early skepticism, prompting her to question religious dogma from a young age.
In 2011, she launched Black Nonbelievers as a nonprofit committed to increasing the visibility of nonbelievers, particularly within Black communities. The organization, led predominantly by women and featuring strong LGBTQ representation, now boasts multiple affiliates nationwide, providing networking opportunities and support for those who reject religious faith.
In this conversation, Thomas weighs in on the sweeping impact of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established under the Trump administration and spearheaded by Elon Musk. While billed as a cost-cutting initiative, DOGE has ushered in mass layoffs, gutted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and revoked contracts under the guise of regulatory reform. Among those affected was Thomas’s husband, Craig, a General Services Administration (GSA) officer with three decades of service who was abruptly laid off alongside many longtime employees.
Thomas argues that DOGE, along with the broader framework of Project 2025, is a calculated effort to dismantle government institutions while disproportionately harming minorities. She describes the Trump administration’s actions as “shocking and unjust,” criticizing what she sees as an administration willing to sacrifice workers’ livelihoods with little regard for legal or ethical boundaries.
Though the administration claims DOGE has saved billions, independent analyses challenge these figures, and legal battles are mounting. Some Democrats have condemned the agency’s sweeping authority, calling it an unprecedented expansion of executive power. “Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned on Monday. The agency is already subject to multiple lawsuits, including one filed by Public Citizen, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing 800,000 federal workers. Plaintiffs argue that DOGE functions as an advisory body and should therefore be subject to federal transparency rules.
(The Humanist)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your husband has been affected by DOGE. What is his story, and how has it impacted his department and job?
Mandisa Thomas: Yes, my husband, Craig, had been a leasing contracting officer with the General Services Administration (GSA) since 1994. It has been his career for decades; he had that job before I met him, before we started our family. Unfortunately, his division and multiple other federal offices were recently affected by the restructuring under the Department of Government Efficiency.
One thing that stood out was a message he sent through a family chat, in which he said: “It is surreal. Logic makes this all seem very off. As just one employee on a team of seven, I had 33 active projects, plus all of South Atlanta—not including my active FEMA assignment. And I was the only one with an unlimited security warrant. For my entire branch of 50 people—with at least 10 active projects—to be removed in one action is mind-boggling. While the people are gone, the work is still there. It is just unbelievable.”
This demonstrates that this current administration cares nothing about the laws, procedures, and people who have to do the work to keep the government running. We saw it in Trump’s first term, when he was impeached because he violated the Impoundment Control Act. He thought he could do whatever he wanted without consequences. But that’s not how things in the federal government work, or at least how they’re supposed to work.
The Trump administration’s actions have been taken straight from Project 2025, a handbook created by conservatives (mainly the Heritage Foundation), which included dismantling the federal government and the federal workforce.
The problem is that none of this is making anything more efficient. It is causing mass instability. The immediate layoffs, firings, and the forced removal of career professionals from the federal government are not about efficiency or cutting costs. The administration had to create this structure through executive order because terminating career federal employees is difficult under normal circumstances. That’s why they bypassed Congress, which controls the budget and created a workaround to push this agenda forward.
It’s sad to see federal employees being forced out of their jobs when payroll expenses only make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget. By comparison, cutting these jobs does not save money—it’s just a ruse.
Unfortunately, many don’t understand the federal budget, how it works, or how the government operates in general. Because of this ignorance, people often vote against their own best interests.
Now, in addition to federal workforce reductions, we also see cuts to public services. Nothing about this is going to be efficient. Security, knowledge, and expertise are all required to run the government effectively, and the loss of these experienced professionals will cause everything to fall apart quickly. We are already seeing economic downturns due to tariffs, and with fewer employees available to keep the government operational, things will only get worse in the long term.
Unfortunately, so many federal employees are losing their livelihoods, and now our family is one of them.
Jacobsen: If you were to consider the perspective of an individual with children—between the ages of 5 and 15—who has a spouse and a similar job, how would that family’s financial situation be affected?
Thomas: First of all, this is a day that no federal employee should ever have to experience, especially those who have dedicated years, even decades, to public service. Being a federal employee is not a welfare service. These individuals perform critical work, and their roles involve intricate processes that ensure the government remains lawful and efficient.
One of the reasons certain aspects of the government take time—although, of course, some areas could be improved—is that everything must be above board. Every action must follow legal procedures, and there cannot be mistakes or loopholes that jeopardize the system. This upheaval is devastating for federal employees with young children and families, who depended on the stability of these jobs until retirement. What are they supposed to do now?
And then there’s the private sector. The job market is already highly competitive, and many federal employees—who often hold college degrees and specialized expertise—are now being forced into an uncertain future. You can imagine the confusion, shock, and fear these workers are experiencing because this was never supposed to happen in the public sector. The federal government operates very differently from private businesses, yet we have people with corporate mindsets coming in and dismantling it for their benefit.
Now, imagine a household where both spouses work in the federal government, and both jobs are suddenly at risk. What happens to their family? It’s maddening. Honestly, I can only describe it as surreal. This was a career job—Craig’s job is older than our children. And now, across the country, countless families are feeling the same shock, disappointment, and devastation.
Jacobsen: How do these layoffs affect federal employees differently, depending on where they are in their careers? On one side, there are recent college graduates—young professionals stepping into government service with the promise of stability and benefits, only to be blindsided. On the other, there are career public servants like your husband—seasoned professionals with decades of experience, suddenly cast aside just as they near retirement. In both cases, these workers find themselves unceremoniously dismissed, echoing the upheaval seen when Musk bought Twitter—mass layoffs delivered via abrupt emails, an indiscriminate purge of an entire workforce. What does this parallel reveal about the broader implications of these policies?
Thomas: Exactly. What’s most tragic is that this administration is not valuing career public service. We’ve seen this in the private sector, where companies went bankrupt because CEOs mismanaged retirement funds, leaving long-term employees with nothing. But this federal government is funded by taxpayer dollars and should not be happening.
For someone like my husband, they couldn’t fire him for job performance—he always had high-performance reviews. Instead, they used Reduction in Force (RIF) as the justification since they couldn’t terminate him outright. And because of his years of service, they couldn’t fire him immediately—they had to classify it as RIF, meaning severance packages are involved.
This is forced retirement—a mix of termination, layoffs, and an abrupt career end. Whether it happens to a veteran federal employee or a probationary new hire, it all feels equally bleak.
For individuals who were new to being a federal employee, this was supposed to be the start of a stable, long-term career. I can only imagine how heartbreaking and surreal this must be for them—just as it is for the veteran employees who have been dedicated to public service for decades. Regardless of experience level or years of service, every one of these workers deserved the dignity of leaving on their terms, especially since they did nothing wrong.
Federal employees are not just government workers; they are taxpayers, too. Like every other working citizen, they contribute to the system. Their jobs are not handouts but essential positions that keep the government running. Yet, here we are, watching people who never voted for this administration lose their livelihoods alongside those who did support it and are now shocked to find themselves unemployed as well.
This crisis highlights not only a lack of public knowledge about how the government operates but also the cold indifference of this administration. They are profiting from public ignorance, using it to line their pockets while duping the American people into believing this is about efficiency when it is really about dismantling federal institutions for political and financial gain.
Jacobsen: In conversations with your husband, what are federal workers saying? Has he spoken with those who still have jobs versus those recently laid off? Are their perspectives different?
Thomas: One of my husband’s longtime coworkers called him—on our youngest son’s 16th birthday yesterday. She had been planning to retire in a year, but now the government has made that decision for her. It was still completely unexpected.
Even Craig, who is a person with a disability and a chronic illness, was only going to continue working for a few more years. Now, that choice has been taken away from him and countless others.
These were supposed to be jobs people could count on, jobs where employees could retire on their terms. Instead, we have people with privatized business mindsets who have already caused harm in the private sector, bringing that disruptive thinking into the federal government. It’s causing chaos, upending lives, and having a devastating impact.
Jacobsen: From your husband’s perspective—through your conversations with him over the years—there will always be some inefficiency or waste in any organization. However, efforts to reduce or streamline the workforce typically involve oversight and a more targeted approach—like a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. Has your husband ever described how this administration’s current approach to handling the federal workforce differs from previous ones?
Thomas: From the start, he has said that much of what this administration is doing violates the U.S. Constitution. He’s worked through multiple administrations and experienced government shutdowns before—where employees were furloughed, then brought back to work with back pay. But this is unprecedented.
It’s shocking and difficult to believe because, while there has always been talk about reducing the government workforce, having 2 million+ employees does not significantly impact the federal budget. The numbers don’t justify the mass layoffs happening now.
The real issue is that Trump and his cabinet do not want people in government who understand or enforce the law. They don’t want anyone telling them what is legal or illegal. They only want loyalists who will follow orders without question, no matter how unconstitutional they may be.
So, his biggest takeaway from all of this is simple: as someone who works in leasing, contracting policy, and federal law, this is illegal – period.
Jacobsen: It may still be too early for a comprehensive analysis, and I’m not sure if any has been conducted yet—I haven’t looked. Of course, I have my own assumptions, but assumptions aren’t evidence; they’re speculation. Do we have any data on whether certain groups—young professionals, older workers, women, or minorities—are being disproportionately affected by these layoffs? Or is the impact more evenly distributed across the workforce?
Thomas: Right now, there is a disproportionate impact on minorities, especially Black employees in the federal government. While the firings are happening across the board, a large number of Black and brown employees—many of whom have spent decades in federal service—are being affected at a much higher rate.
This is particularly concerning because Black workers had to fight hard to secure these positions—especially in agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD). We just saw a four-star general fired, and the justification used was that he was a DEI hire, which is a coded attack rather than a legitimate performance-based decision.
Even though the policies don’t explicitly state it, the language and execution of these layoffs disproportionately affect people of colour and people with disabilities. It’s a rollback to when only certain groups had rights and access to stable government careers.
So, while sometimes the racist undertones are subtle, in other cases, they are blatantly obvious. This administration is making it clear who they believe should have power and who they consider expendable.
Jacobsen: How do you feel watching your husband suffer not just an economic hit but a personal loss? Far be it from me to agree with the Pope, but he was right about the dignity people find in work. What has your husband said about his sense of dignity and identity after 31 years in public service?
Thomas: I can only imagine how much this has affected his sense of dignity. Craig normally takes a significant amount of time to process change, so after 30+ years on the job, this is a serious adjustment. This is still very new—it only happened a few days ago—so he is still trying to figure out how to navigate it. I can’t fully speak for him, even though I had been cautious and concerned about this happening long before it did. Now, we are focused on regrouping and maximizing his remaining paid leave while we explore our options moving forward.
As for me, I must keep working with Black Nonbelievers and my other projects. We have always supported our household and children together, but now, we must renegotiate and redefine our future under this administration. It’s not going to be easy.
We take it one day at a time—that’s all we can do. We are simply trying to keep our heads above water because that’s exactly what it feels like. That’s about all I can say for now.
Dan O’Dowd is one of the world’s foremost experts in designing software that never fails and cannot be hacked. Over the past four decades, he has built secure operating systems for some of the most high-stakes projects in aerospace and defense, including Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, the Boeing B1-B intercontinental nuclear bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Since earning his degree from the California Institute of Technology in 1976, O’Dowd has been at the forefront of developing safety-critical systems and unhackable software, creating certified secure real-time operating systems used across industries. Dan is also the founder of both the Dawn Project and Green Hills Software.
Initially a fan of Tesla, O’Dowd grew alarmed after analyzing videos that revealed critical failures in the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology—instances where the system failed to recognize school buses and misinterpreted traffic signs. He likens Tesla’s approach to some of the most notorious corporate failures, from Ford’s Pinto gas tank fiasco to Takata’s deadly airbags. Unlike Tesla, O’Dowd argues, competitors such as Waymo have developed self-driving systems that are genuinely reliable. He also points to Elon Musk’s increasingly polarizing public persona and political controversies as factors undermining Tesla’s credibility and eroding its public image.
(via CNN)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me, Dan. When did you first begin to suspect that Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” might be a misleading or inadequate description of what the system actually delivers in practice?
Dan O’Dowd: The realization came gradually. I was a fan of Tesla. I own eight Teslas myself. They’ve been the only cars I’ve driven since 2010—15 years. My wife has been driving a Tesla for 13 years, and it is the same Model S we bought back then. So, we were big fans of Tesla for a long time.
The first signs that things were not as represented came around 2016 when Elon Musk made bold claims that Tesla had solved the self-driving problem. He asserted that their system was safer than a human driver and announced they would demonstrate it. Musk described a trip where he would get into a Tesla at his house in Los Angeles, and the car would drive him across the country, drop him off in Times Square, and then park itself. He even gave a specific timeline for this demonstration six months later. I remember hearing that and thinking, “Wow, that’s exciting.” If Tesla could do that, they would have essentially solved autonomous driving.
So, I waited, and waited. The date came, and when people started asking about it, Musk said there had been some minor hang-ups and a few details to work out, but the demo would happen in another four to six months. I waited again. Then, that date came and went. People started asking about it again, but Musk stopped answering this time. There was no new timeline and no further updates. The entire project was quietly abandoned.
A year or two later, it became clear that the promised demonstration wouldn’t happen. No evidence supports the claims of having solved Full Self-Driving (FSD). Fast-forward to 2020 or 2021, and someone mentioned to me that I should look at the YouTube videos of Tesla’s FSD demos. These were real-world tests where people installed cameras in their cars and recorded the system.
I started watching the videos, and they were shocking. The cars were running red lights, rolling through stop signs, slamming on the brakes in the middle of the road, and doing all kinds of erratic and dangerous things. At first, I thought, “Well, every system has some bugs—it’s part of the development process.” However, to understand the problem’s scope, I asked one of my team members to analyze the videos.
We compiled a detailed report by counting the elapsed time and documenting the various failures in each video. The results were devastating. It became clear that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system was far from Musk’s claims.
It said that the system would fail frequently—on average, every eight minutes, it would do something stupid. Over a longer period, like days, it would essentially crash. It would crash your car if you did not monitor it like a hawk and intervene to stop it. Yet, they’re delivering this product to ordinary people who want it and are willing to pay for it.
They started with a small number of users—about 100 initially—which didn’t seem like too many. Then, after about a year, they expanded to 11,000, then 60,000, and eventually to half a million people, which is where we are today. So, this product, which is supposed to be fully self-driving, has major flaws. For instance, if you turn it on and a school bus stops, puts on its flashing lights, extends its stop sign, and opens the door for kids to get off, the car won’t stop. It’ll zoom past the bus, even with children running into the road.
We created a Super Bowl commercial two years ago showing exactly this scenario. Several months later, in North Carolina, a child got off a bus and was hit by a Tesla operating on Full Self-Driving. It struck the child. The kid hit the windshield and ended up in the hospital for three months, on a respirator, with a broken collarbone and leg. The system does not recognize what a school bus is.
How can a company ship a product called “Full Self-Driving” that doesn’t even know what a school bus is? The system interprets a school bus with flashing lights as a truck with its hazard lights on. And what does a driver typically do when approaching a truck with its hazard lights on? You look around the truck to see if anyone is coming from the other direction. If the road is clear, you might slow down but ultimately go around the truck and continue driving. That’s exactly what Tesla’s Full Self-Driving does. It treats a stopped school bus like a truck with hazard lights—it drives past without stopping.
We aired that commercial, and someone asked Elon Musk about this issue, specifically about Teslas running over kids getting off school buses. Musk responded, “This will greatly increase public awareness that a Tesla can drive itself (supervised for now).” That was two years ago, and the problem still hasn’t been fixed. The system still doesn’t know what a school bus is.
We also ran a full-page ad in The New York Times and another Super Bowl ad to raise awareness. Musk hasn’t done anything about it. I’ve never seen any other company behave this way—except maybe a cigarette company. Companies like that deliberately sell products while telling people they’re healthy, safe, and good for them, even when not. Tesla’s behaviour is despicable. It’s hard to believe a company would act this way.
At this point, there’s no excuse for any of it. It’s the depths of greed and depravity. The right thing to do would be to take it off the road and fix it. I can’t imagine that if this were GM, Toyota, or BMW, they wouldn’t immediately assign 100 engineers to fix the problem. But as far as Musk is concerned, he’s not fixing it. Recently, he’s been focused on windshield wipers, which, by the way, still don’t work properly.
It cannot even properly handle windshield wipers—how can it drive a car? I’ve never seen an incomplete product sold to consumers, especially a safety-critical product. If this were some trivial app on a phone that occasionally failed, that would be acceptable. But this is a car, and people’s lives are at stake.
Over 40 people have already died in Tesla self-driving crashes. So, where do we go from here? Tesla is developing the software this way—“move fast, break things.” They keep doing it and continue shipping it to more and more people.
It’s hard to comprehend. I can’t imagine any respectable company doing this, yet Tesla does it daily. For instance, their system doesn’t even know what a “Do Not Enter” sign means. That should be an easy thing to program. A school bus might take additional work, but a “Do Not Enter” sign? It’s straightforward: don’t go here. The car doesn’t recognize the sign, doesn’t obey it, and will go the wrong way down a one-way street because it doesn’t understand what “Do Not Enter” or “One Way” signs mean. We’ve tested all of this, and the results are astonishingly bad.
How can you sell a product for $15,000 and tell people it’s 10 times safer than a human driver? Sometimes, Musk says it’s four times safer. The reality is that it’s not even close to the worst human driver on the road. Who’s the worst driver on the road? A 15-and-a-half-year-old with a learner’s permit must practice with a parent in the car. Even then, that kid must log 40 or 50 hours of road driving, and their parents must sign off that they’ve practiced.
Every parent who has gone through this knows how nerve-wracking it is to sit in the passenger seat while their kid learns to drive. But no sane person would sit in the passenger seat of a fully self-driving car with no one in control. No one would let it drive without being able to intervene. Elon Musk wouldn’t do it. The biggest Tesla fanboy wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do it.
Well, Arthur did it. He sat in the passenger seat to test it because we wanted to know if it would work. It does work—barely. We’ve got a great video of him sitting in the passenger seat while the car drives with no one in control. But that’s not something anyone would do willingly. Everyone would rather sit with their 15-and-a-half-year-old learner and not die.
Nobody sits in a Full Self-Driving (FSD) car with it in control, alone in the driver’s seat, without any ability to intervene. It is a far worse driver than any 15-and-a-half-year-old with a learner’s permit. Yet, Elon Musk claims it is safer than any driver—10 times safer than the average driver. And for what purpose? To get people to give Tesla their money. They’ve picked up billions of dollars selling this product, telling people it will revolutionize transportation and make Tesla the most valuable company in the world. That’s why Tesla is worth more than all other car companies combined—because FSD is supposedly so amazing and the best self-driving software in the world. Musk says it all the time.
Of course, except for competitors like Waymo, which has self-driving cars that have completed over 4 million paid trips. Amazon has Zoox, and two or three companies in China operate self-driving cars. The only company that doesn’t have self-driving cars is Tesla. And here we are.
(U.S. Air Force)
Jacobsen: When considering similar failures in the automotive industry, what case would you point to as a meaningful comparison? Are there historical examples where a car manufacturer was aware of a serious defect yet failed to address it, even as public scrutiny grew?
O’Dowd: Yes. One example is the Ford Pinto gas tanks that exploded in crashes during the 1970s. Those failures caused fatalities, and Ford faced massive fines and public backlash. Tesla’s FSD has already been involved in more fatal crashes than the Pinto gas tank failures. Another case is the Takata airbag scandal from 10 years ago. Takata airbags caused fatalities due to exploding shrapnel. Tesla’s FSD fatalities have now exceeded the number of deaths caused by Takata airbags.
Another example would be Toyota’s sudden unintended acceleration issue from 15 to 20 years ago. People reported that their cars would suddenly accelerate out of control, leading to accidents and fatalities. Even in that case, the fatalities were fewer than those caused by Tesla’s FSD. These products—Ford Pintos, Takata airbags, and Toyota’s unintended acceleration—were either recalled or resulted in massive lawsuits and a significant reputational hit for the manufacturers. Yet Tesla’s FSD, despite its worse track record, is still on the road today, making money and boosting Tesla’s valuation.
Musk has directly linked Tesla’s valuation to FSD. He’s even said in a video that Tesla is “worth basically zero” without Full Self-Driving. With FSD, Tesla is valued higher than Toyota, GM, Ford, BMW, and Volkswagen combined despite having a tiny market share. Tesla’s sales declined last year, and FSD doesn’t deliver on its promises—it’s completely unsafe.
Jacobsen: How has the media generally responded when you’ve presented your findings in a measured, analytical way? I’ve seen a few interviews where you’ve laid out your case, but in at least one instance, the conversation devolved into a shouting match—instigated not by you but by the opposing side. What kind of pushback have you faced when presenting a clear, evidence-based assessment?
O’Dowd: There are generally two scenarios. One is when I’m debating a pro-FSD Tesla supporter. Those debates can get rather heated at times. The other is when we are presenting evidence to journalists or legislators. We have mountains of evidence—hundreds of videos showing exactly what we say. I don’t just go out there and make claims. I have a whole team, a staff that tests these systems ourselves. We analyze other reports and videos, and we invite people—journalists especially—to see it for themselves.
We tell journalists, “Do you want to see how this product works? Get in the car. We’ll take you for a drive.” Beforehand, we ask them, “Do you think this system is better than a human driver?” Everyone who gets out of the car afterward says, “No way. This isn’t even close to the skill of an average human driver.” It does crazy things. For instance, it will stop in the middle of railroad tracks and stay there. It will run red lights and stop signs.
We’ve taken high-profile individuals for these demonstrations. We took the Attorney General of California on a trip. We rented a school bus with a driver, set it up on the side of the road, and had the Tesla drive by as if the bus wasn’t there. People are understandably nervous. In one test, we used a mannequin designed to simulate a child stepping out from behind the bus. The Tesla ran it down without hesitation.
We’ve taken congresspeople and state senators on similar rides. We even went to Sacramento with a dozen legislators who wanted to see what this system does for themselves. We’ve invited journalists from many outlets, offering them the chance to experience FSD firsthand. We plan to go to Washington, D.C., to give senators and congresspeople similar demonstrations. Many of them hear from Elon Musk and his supporters about how “great” FSD is—that it’s supposedly the best technology in the world. But that’s Musk’s marketing machine at work. He has 200 million followers, many amplifying his claims and attacking anyone trying to expose the truth.
I’ve been called a murderer countless times for pointing out the flaws in FSD. When we started this campaign three years ago, the overwhelming sentiment was pro-Elon and pro-FSD. But things have shifted. Waymo hadn’t yet demonstrated its self-driving cars to the public. They were still under wraps. That made Tesla’s claims seem more credible.
Now, though, Waymo has been successfully running fully driverless cars. They’re doing 150,000 self-driving taxi rides per week. Over the past year, they’ve completed over 4 million rides—4 million times, people have gotten into a Waymo car without a driver, traveled to their destinations safely, and didn’t worry about the system failing. This happens daily in cities like Phoenix, San Francisco, Austin, and now Los Angeles. No one has been hurt. No one has been killed.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s FSD has been involved in at least 1,700 crashes, with 42 fatalities. Oh, wait, I’m told it’s now 44 fatalities—it keeps going up. The comparison couldn’t be more stark.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned the marketing machine behind Tesla and Elon Musk. Can you elaborate on how that influences the narrative surrounding Full Self-Driving (FSD) and its shortcomings?
O’Dowd: We’re up against one of the greatest marketing machines on Earth, selling a complete lie about this product. We’re doing our best to counter it; fortunately, more journalists and others are joining in. We even have a great video showing Elon Musk, year after year, looking directly into the camera and confidently claiming that Tesla will have Full Self-Driving working better than a human driver by the next year.
Every year for the last 10 years, he’s always made this claim with great emphasis and certainty. And every single year, it doesn’t happen. Then the next year comes, and he says it again. And again. He’s even saying it now. He’s claiming, “By the end of the year, for sure.” But it’s still pathetic. They haven’t even figured out how to handle something as basic as a school bus.
How can they claim they will roll this out globally when they can’t even handle school buses yet? It reminds me of the old joke in artificial intelligence research. If you ask someone when AI will arrive, they’ll always say, “10 years away.” And then, 10 years later, they’ll say the same thing. Musk does the same thing—except he says one year, every year, and expects people to forget. But the Internet now has a long memory.
We’ve compiled those clips of him making these claims year after year, and when you show the video to people, it has an effect. They’re shocked. It’s like, “Wow, this guy said that unequivocally, and he’s been wrong every time.” For example, in 2019, he claimed there would be 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020. Where are those robo-taxis?
There are robo-taxis, though—just not from Tesla.
Waymo has robo-taxis from Google. But Tesla? Zero. That’s not entirely true, though, because in October, they held an event on the backlot of Warner Brothers. They brought in about 500 or 1,000 people, let them ride in Tesla cars, and called them “robo-taxis.” But the cars never left the Warner backlot. They drove around a fixed route late at night without traffic, lights, or obstacles. It wasn’t a real-world demonstration.
It was basically a 1950s Disneyland ride. At the same event, Musk unveiled robots that were supposedly bartending and serving drinks. Except those robots turned out to be remote-controlled by humans. People exposed this, and eventually, Musk admitted it. The robots weren’t autonomous. They were fake.
The entire event was staged. The so-called robo-taxis were just cars driving around a few blocks with no real-world challenges. The robots were human-controlled. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Musk said on Tesla’s Q4 2024 earnings call, “There is no company in the world that is as good in real-world AI as Tesla” and asked, “Who’s in second place for real-world AI? I would need a very big telescope to see them. That’s how far behind they are.” Tesla’s claims are laughable compared to Waymo’s, which conducts tens of thousands of rides per week in real cities with no drivers and no incidents. The difference is stark, yet Musk’s marketing machine convinces people otherwise.
Jacobsen: In light of the issues surrounding Tesla and Musk’s claims, this raises a larger question: to what degree are other CEOs of major corporations similarly inflating claims or outright spreading falsehoods about their products? How does Musk and Tesla’s approach fit into the broader multinational corporate image?
O’Dowd: This is far beyond anything I’ve ever seen. There is no functioning product. It simply does not work. Musk has been telling people for 10 years that it works, and he’s been selling it. He’s taken in billions of dollars from people buying this software—many also bought the car because of the promise of Full Self-Driving (FSD). The software alone has generated billions, but it does not work. He’s been trying for years to make it work; meanwhile, the competition has completely passed him.
In October 2016, Musk said, “All Tesla vehicles leaving the factory have all the hardware necessary for Level 5 autonomy.” Eight years later, during Tesla’s Q4 2024 earnings call, Musk admitted, “The honest answer is that we’re gonna have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those that have bought Full Self-Driving.”
Companies like Waymo already have the very thing Musk claims he will deliver. It exists, it works, and it’s being used successfully. They’re selling it and making money from it. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. There’s little difference between this and the Elizabeth Holmes case. Holmes claimed her device could run 100 blood tests from a single drop of blood. It didn’t. Similarly, Tesla claims it has a fully self-driving car but does not drive itself. How is that any different?
Of course, Theranos reached a $9 billion valuation, while Tesla’s valuation hit $1.4 trillion, largely based on FSD. That’s where the comparison diverges. No other company makes promises on this scale. Sure, automakers occasionally show concept cars with futuristic features that might be available in five years—or might not. But everyone understands that concept cars are aspirational. Musk, on the other hand, is delivering a product to consumers that doesn’t work, is unsafe, and is killing people.
Yet, he owns the public square. Remember, Musk owns one of the largest social media platforms. He has a direct link to 200 million people through his app, and he controls what is said there. Meanwhile, traditional news media outlets are in retreat—many have seen sales drop by 50%, and their subscriber bases are shrinking. Musk dominates the narrative, leveraging his platform and influence to shape public perception of Tesla and FSD.
Jacobsen: John Lyman suggested I ask you about the mounting scrutiny surrounding Elon Musk, particularly in light of Tesla’s ongoing challenges—safety concerns, declining sales, and the controversies surrounding the Cybertruck.
Compounding these issues, Musk’s increasing alignment with far-right ideologies—such as his endorsement of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a party attempting to rehabilitate Hitler’s image—along with his erratic social media behavior and, most recently, a gesture that any reasonable observer would interpret as a Sieg Heil salute, have raised alarms.
Under normal circumstances, a CEO exhibiting this level of volatility would likely be forced out. Given Tesla’s situation, do you think the company could benefit from less polarizing leadership and not actively harming its brand? What are your thoughts on that assessment?
O’Dowd: He’s right about Tesla’s current situation. Their sales dropped last year, which is unusual because no other major car company I’m aware of experienced a decline—everyone else saw sales increase. Tesla’s market share also decreased. They only have two viable models, the Model 3 and the Model Y.
As for the Cybertruck, it’s a complete failure. They originally had 2 million reservations, but those didn’t translate into actual orders. Now, they’ve run out of pre-reservations. Of the Cybertrucks shipped, it’s been around 30,000—or even less. The 2 million reservations were mostly fake orders, with only tens of thousands becoming real purchases.
Meanwhile, inventory is piling up because the demand is far smaller than they expected. The Cybertruck is not a smart product—it’s a bad product. This was their first major innovation since the Model Y, which came out years ago. And yet, it’s going nowhere.
Tesla also has significant reliability issues. Major organizations like J.D. Power and Consumer Reports consistently rank Tesla near the bottom, not the top, for reliability and safety. Many experts have recommended against using their Full Self-Driving feature because it’s unsafe. Recently, Tesla has been linked to more fatalities than any other car brand, which is alarming.
Politically, Musk’s position has also hurt Tesla. His base was originally people who cared about reducing CO2 emissions and transitioning to a non-fossil-fuel economy. Now, Musk has shifted to the far right. The people who believed in him—those who saw Tesla as a way to save the planet—are saying, “Wait a minute, I don’t agree with these things Musk is saying.” Owning a Tesla is no longer seen as a statement about environmentalism; instead, it’s becoming associated with far-right politics.
This shift has led to a cultural backlash. Some Tesla owners now put bumper stickers on their cars that say, “I bought this before Elon went crazy,” to distance themselves from him and insulate themselves from criticism while driving a Tesla.
This has hurt the Tesla brand significantly. It’s not just in the United States, either. Musk’s approval rating in the UK was recently reported as 71% negative. He’s jumped into British politics, trying to influence the government, and people are not reacting well. Imagine if BMW came to the U.S. and attempted to sway elections by backing Democrats or Republicans. That wouldn’t go over well, and it’s the same situation here.
At a high level, Musk sees himself as untouchable, almost like a modern-day emperor. He operates as though laws don’t apply to him and no one can hold him accountable.
There are laws, but they don’t apply to him. He does all these things, and any other CEO would have been fired in a minute for them. It’s wild, but he gets away with it.
Why? Because his fanboys, shareholders, and board of directors have all made immense amounts of money off a product that doesn’t work. He keeps saying it works, keeps spending money to promote it, and somehow manages to sustain the illusion. But it’s taking a toll.
The Wall Street Journal released a poll today showing his favorability at -11 net approval: 40% positive, 51% negative. But that poll was taken before the Nazi salute incident. How much did that further damage his favorability? It’s significant.
Corinne Pohlmann, Executive Vice-President of Advocacy at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), unpacks the potential fallout of U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian exports. For small businesses, particularly exporters, the prospect of rising costs and economic uncertainty looms large. While CFIB advocates for targeted relief funded by tariff revenues, Pohlmann warns that broad retaliatory measures could do more harm than good.
Beyond tariffs, Canada’s internal trade barriers present another persistent challenge. Pohlmann argues that mutual recognition of standards offers a faster and more pragmatic solution than full regulatory harmonization. Meanwhile, existing government programs—such as Work-Sharing—may provide a temporary lifeline for businesses bracing for disruption.
With Trump’s unpredictable approach to trade negotiations, Pohlmann stresses the importance of strategic, measured responses. For Canada’s small businesses, the challenge isn’t just weathering potential tariffs but navigating the broader economic volatility and regulatory uncertainty they could bring.
(Canadian Federation of Independent Business)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are CFIB’s primary concerns regarding President Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian exports, which have been delayed but are expected to take effect on March 1st?
Corinne Pohlmann: Imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian exports to the United States would significantly impact the Canadian economy, particularly on small businesses across the country. About half of all small businesses in Canada engage in trade with the U.S. The majority—approximately 47%—import from the U.S. In comparison, around 18% to 20% of exports to the U.S. These tariffs would primarily impact exporters. In contrast, retaliatory tariffs imposed by Canada would affect importers.
When we surveyed our members at the end of last year—when this issue was already making headlines—over 80% indicated that these tariffs would have some impact on their business. While only about 50% of small businesses directly trade with the U.S., many others rely on companies that do. For example, some purchase goods from wholesalers or distributors that trade directly with the U.S., meaning they, too, will feel the effects.
Another concern is the potential impact on the Canadian dollar. If its value declines, importing goods will become more expensive, further straining businesses. These factors will significantly affect small businesses, leaving them with limited options. In fact, over two-thirds of our members told us they would likely have to raise prices, which would, in turn, affect Canadian consumers. At a time when affordability is already a concern, this will only add further financial strain.
Jacobsen: How is this affecting Canadian small business owners?
Pohlmann: There is a great deal of anxiety. We are receiving numerous calls, even though businesses have a reprieve. While this provides some breathing room, there is still widespread concern about what these tariffs will mean in the long term.
Many businesses are rethinking their entire business models because they have relied so heavily on the U.S. as either a supplier or a customer. Just before this interview, I read an article about a company in the Montreal area that is now laying off employees because 80% of its products are exported to the U.S. However, its American customers are already shifting to other markets, finding it more cost-effective to source from Asia rather than Canada due to the 25% tariffs. The company is uncertain whether its current business model will remain viable, so it is initiating layoffs while exploring ways to sustain operations.
Although this may not be a universal issue, similar situations are unfolding across many companies in Canada.
Some businesses can pivot, though shifting to other markets may take some time. Others may have to rethink their current approach and explore alternative ways to manage the situation.
Exporters will experience the most significant direct impact. They may have to decide whether to remain in Canada, retain all their employees, or pivot to other markets quickly. The situation is also challenging for importers, but they at least have the option of increasing prices and attempting to adjust as they transition to alternative markets that may offer lower costs for their customers.
Jacobsen: What is CFIB’s position on broad retaliatory tariffs from the Canadian government?
Pohlmann: We are concerned that broad retaliatory tariffs would have a widespread impact on many small businesses. A more strategic approach would be to focus tariffs on products readily available within Canada or from other countries.
This would minimize disruption. Raising prices abruptly is difficult for small businesses, as they do not want to alienate their customers.
Small businesses and consumers are already struggling. However, absorbing a 25% increase is nearly impossible because most small businesses operate on razor-thin profit margins. This disadvantages them compared to large multinational corporations, which are often better equipped to absorb sudden changes in the marketplace.
We urge the government to avoid broad-based retaliatory tariffs and instead focus on select products. Additionally, we encourage flexibility so that adjustments can be made if the tariffs disproportionately impact specific sectors. The government was receptive to industry feedback during the Trump tariffs in 2017 and 2018, making modifications when necessary. We hope they will take a similarly adaptive approach this time.
Earnest Ice Cream shop in Vancouver. (Alex Robert)
Jacobsen: Canada and the United States share the longest contiguous border of any neighbouring countries. What percentage of Canadian small businesses are directly involved in trade with the U.S.?
Pohlmann: About one in two small businesses in Canada trade with the U.S. This does not mean they do so daily—some trade weekly or frequently. In contrast, others may only do so a few times a year. Even for those with infrequent trade, it remains an important part of their business operations.
The majority of these businesses are importers, sourcing products from the U.S. However, around one in five to one in six exporters send goods to the American market, a level of trade significantly higher than that of any other country.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in this situation, and we remain hopeful that these tariffs will continue to be delayed. The uncertainty surrounding them can sometimes be as damaging as the tariffs themselves.
Jacobsen: What policy measures would help small businesses remain competitive in this uncertain market?
Pohlmann: We can take several important steps. This uncertainty presents an opportunity to address longstanding issues that have hindered businesses for years finally.
First and foremost is internal trade. Interprovincial trade barriers have long been a challenge for businesses in Canada. Yet, efforts to address them have not had a significant impact. Breaking down these barriers—especially the differing rules and regulations between provinces that add unnecessary costs and paperwork for small businesses—would be an important step forward.
Recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) research suggests that Canada’s internal trade barriers are equivalent to a 21% tariff. Reducing these barriers would allow for a freer movement of goods and people within Canada, making domestic trade more efficient. We have even heard from businesses that it is sometimes easier to trade with the U.S. than with other provinces, which should not be the case. We need a more concrete and bold approach rather than allowing efforts to be stalled by protectionist interests. Instead of harmonizing every rule, provinces should recognize each other’s regulations, making trade easier across the country.
Second, competitiveness and productivity are critical concerns. Productivity in Canada has been declining, so our standard of living has dropped over the past decade. This is a major issue because we currently see more small businesses closing than opening, which historically has not been the norm in Canada. To reverse this trend, we must address tax structures—are they too onerous? What can be done to ease the cost of doing business? This remains the number one concern among our members, as high costs are preventing business growth.
Another key issue is red tape—the excessive regulations, paperwork, and compliance requirements that create unnecessary business burdens. Many of these regulations are outdated, redundant, or duplicative, yet businesses must still comply.
Last week, during our Red Tape Awareness Week, we released a report showing that businesses in Canada spend over $50 billion annually on government administration and regulations at all three levels: municipal, provincial, and federal. About one-third of that burden is unnecessary red tape, which could be eliminated without compromising health, safety, or environmental protections. The problem is that governments do not effectively remove outdated regulations, leaving businesses stuck navigating bureaucratic obstacles that no longer serve a purpose.
Eliminating just one-third of unnecessary red tape would significantly boost productivity and make it easier to do business in Canada. One of the most startling statistics from our report is that two-thirds of business owners would not recommend entrepreneurship to their children due to the overwhelming regulatory burden. That is a troubling indicator of how much red tape discourages innovation and growth.
This issue also affects other professions, such as doctors. Many healthcare professionals are bogged down by administrative paperwork, limiting their time spent treating patients. If we streamline paperwork for doctors, we would have more healthcare professionals available to serve Canadians. Addressing these regulatory challenges should be a top priority for all levels of government.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that a 25% tariff is set to be implemented unless another round of negotiations results in a delay or a reversal. At the same time, internal trade barriers can sometimes act as a tariff. How should these internal trade barriers be dealt with?
Pohlmann: Canada’s size undoubtedly increases the cost of doing business, particularly in terms of transportation. However, interprovincial trade barriers only make matters worse. Transportation is a great example.
A truck traveling across the country may have to stop at provincial borders and adjust its configuration based on differing provincial weight regulations, axle requirements, or cargo classifications. These variations create unnecessary costs and delays.
Each province does not intentionally make it difficult for businesses. Instead, provinces have historically developed independent regulations without considering how they align with their neighbours. Fortunately, a pilot project has been launched to mutually recognize transportation regulations across Canada.
Under this initiative, provinces will agree that if a truck is compliant in British Columbia, it will be automatically recognized as compliant in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and beyond—without needing modifications to meet slightly different provincial regulations. This is an encouraging step and serves as a test case for a broader solution: mutual recognition of interprovincial regulations.
If expanded, this approach could significantly reduce business costs. For example, a small construction company in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia currently needs two sets of safety gear because each province has slightly different protective boots and jacket regulations. With mutual recognition, the company could use a single standardized set across both provinces.
While such differences may seem minor, they create substantial additional costs for businesses when layered together. Companies adapt as needed, but many of these regulations lack practical justification. Gravity works the same way in every province. So, if fall protection equipment is safe in Nova Scotia, it should also be considered safe in New Brunswick. Yet today, workers must use separate gear for each province.
Jacobsen: Are there any initiatives to comprehensively standardize minor trade regulations in a way that could optimize internal trade across Canada?
Pohlmann: Yes, and that is why mutual recognition is the fastest and most effective way to address these barriers. Since 2017, Canada has had the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA). At the time, there was great momentum—all provinces agreed to create a formal agreement to improve interprovincial trade.
This agreement replaced the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), which had been in place since the early 1990s but had become outdated. Under the CFTA, provinces committed to eliminating unnecessary trade barriers. Still, they were also allowed to list exceptions—rules they could keep in place without change.
Some provinces had as few as eight exceptions, while others had as many as 30. A working group was created to review and harmonize these rules across Canada systematically.
The problem is that the process has been extremely slow. The working group identified about 30 regulations for harmonization, but only 18 have been addressed in eight years. At this pace, fully harmonizing trade rules across Canada could take centuries.
This is why mutual recognition is a much better approach. Instead of trying to standardize all regulations, provinces would agree to recognize each other’s rules as valid. This would mean businesses only need to comply with the regulations of their home province. That compliance would be accepted in other provinces.
From a business perspective, this is the fastest and simplest solution. Last fall, we were pleased when all provinces agreed to launch a pilot project in the transportation industry using mutual recognition. We hope this approach will expand beyond transportation to many other sectors, if not the entire regulatory framework governing trade in Canada.
Jacobsen: The Trump administration seems likely to present some challenges for Canadian businesses. What support programs currently exist to help small businesses weather any uncertainties?
Pohlmann: Nothing comparable to the support programs we had during COVID-19 exists, and we do not believe the same level of intervention is needed. This situation is different. Businesses were completely shut down during the pandemic, and the economy reached a standstill. While the 25% tariffs will be a significant blow, they will not shut down the economy.
Any support measures should, first and foremost, be funded by the revenue collected by the Canadian government from its retaliatory tariffs. If the projected $30 billion in affected goods is accurate, and we assume a 25% tariff rate, that could generate approximately $6–7 billion. This revenue should provide targeted relief to the businesses most directly affected.
If the impact is short-term, lasting only a month or two, most businesses should be able to survive. However, if the situation persists for an extended period, further policy responses may be necessary.
Organizations such as BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada) and EDC (Export Development Canada) could offer low-interest loans. However, we are cautious about this approach, as many businesses are still struggling to repay loans from the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), which was introduced during COVID-19. While CEBA provided temporary relief, it became a financial burden for many small businesses. Even today, about half of our members are still repaying their CEBA loans and other debts accumulated during the pandemic.
At this point, it is too early to determine additional measures until we fully understand the economic impact of the tariffs. However, there are existing programs that businesses can utilize.
For example, Employment Insurance (EI) remains available for laid-off workers. From an employer perspective, there is also the Work-Sharing Program, which helps businesses retain employees during temporary downturns. Under this program, EI partially subsidizes salaries. At the same time, employers continue to pay a portion, allowing businesses to avoid layoffs in the hope that economic conditions improve within a few months.
This program was successfully used during COVID-19 and was also implemented in response to previous tariffs in 2017–2018. Again, it could be an effective tool, particularly for exporters and manufacturers facing reduced demand due to the tariffs.
Jacobsen: It is not always wise to speculate, but what do small businesses take on the rationale behind the 25% tariffs?
Pohlmann: Regarding President Trump, I don’t think anyone truly understands how his mind works. Like everyone else, we just read what’s in the news. His book, The Art of the Deal, outlines his negotiation style, and this approach aligns with how he typically operates.
In discussions with my American counterparts, who were seeking advice on navigating this situation, they said the same thing: He thrives on making people uncomfortable, boxing them into a corner, and then extracting concessions from them. That is just how he operates. He is unpredictable, so I find myself pessimistic and optimistic about where this may go.
My optimism comes from the possibility that this is all just a negotiating tactic—that, in the end, he is simply using this as leverage to extract concessions in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) negotiations. If that is the case, he may never impose the 25% tariffs; if he does, they could be short-lived.
The pessimist in me is concerned that he is highly unpredictable and prone to unilateral decisions. Reports from inside the White House suggest that his advisors say one thing while he says another. Although he has only been in office for a few weeks, conflicting information about his trade priorities exists.
Canada is not the main target this week, but that could change next week. He frequently shifts focus, focusing on different parts of the world. Because of this, even experienced business leaders do not necessarily have better insight into their decision-making.
At this point, all we can do is wait and see.
Jacobsen: Geopolitics requires diplomacy, compromise, and consensus-building rather than a purely adversarial approach. While a high-stakes negotiation style might work in certain business contexts, it does not translate well to international relations. Yet, Trump appears to apply the same mentality to business and politics—which is catastrophic for longstanding, stable partnerships like the one between Canada and the U.S.
Pohlmann: I would argue that this volatility is not just an international issue—it is also happening domestically within the United States. His rash decision-making is not limited to geopolitical affairs; he also makes abrupt policy changes at home.
He came into office determined to disrupt the status quo, and that is precisely what he is doing.
As we both acknowledged earlier, this will be a bumpy ride.
Jacobsen: Corinne, on that happy note, thank you for your time today. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I appreciate your insights and expertise.
As Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae brings a seasoned political instinct to the world of diplomacy. In this conversation, he reflects on how his political career has shaped his approach—favoring direct engagement and forthright advocacy, particularly on Indigenous rights, gender equality, and LGBTQI+ issues. Rae discusses the challenges of fostering global dialogue, maintaining Canada’s credibility on the world stage, and navigating the complexities of multilateralism.
The conversation spans a range of urgent global issues, from the uneven toll of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine to the escalating crises in the Middle East and the resurgence of authoritarianism. He also delves into the delicate art of consensus-building at the UN, the tension between national interests and universal principles, and Canada’s evolving role in climate policy, cybersecurity, and addressing historical injustices. Throughout, Rae underscores the trade-offs inherent in diplomacy and the ongoing necessity of sustained engagement in defending democracy, human rights, and global cooperation.
(United Nations)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has your extensive experience in domestic politics influenced your approach to international diplomacy?
Bob Rae: First of all, I’m referred to here at the UN as “The Politician” because there’s a difference in style between someone who is used to dealing with the media and others in the diplomatic field. I speak as directly as possible about the issues without necessarily adhering to every word of a prepared text.
I take a more informal approach, but I get along extremely well with my colleagues here, and everyone works differently. Indigenous rights, for example, are issues I have pursued here at the UN. It has been very challenging, but it is nevertheless something I feel strongly about. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is an anchor document at the UN, and there is the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which takes place here every spring. I will attend that under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
My long experience in Canadian politics and involvement in advancing equality rights have shaped my approach to women’s equality issues. The same goes for LGBTQI+ issues—I have been advocating and pushing harder for broader recognition in that area.
I have also worked extensively on employment equity and diversity, which has given me insight into many issues affecting African delegates, for example. African countries have a strong interest in addressing historical legacy issues such as colonialism and slavery, and I believe it is important that we, as a country, recognize the depth and extent of those concerns.
So, yes, all of that has played a role. This job allowed me to draw on my history and skill sets. It has also been a homecoming for me because, as you may know, my father was a diplomat. I grew up and attended high school at the International School of Geneva.
My father later became the Canadian Ambassador to the UN in New York. I did not live here with him because I was already studying at the University of Oxford. Still, it was a significant way for me to—like I said—come back home to something I instinctively knew about and understood. It had a major influence on how I handled political issues in Canada.
So, yes, it has been a wonderful experience, and I have enjoyed participating in the UN’s life here in New York.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House during Trump’s first term. (White House)
Jacobsen: In your experience, what are the biggest challenges in fostering meaningful dialogue on Indigenous rights, gender equality, and LGBTQI+ issues—such as within the UN LGBTI Core Group—as well as broader concerns like economic inequality? These are inherently global issues, shaped by diverse perspectives and political realities across different regions.
Canada is often seen, at least in principle, as a champion of UN values—a reputation it has carefully cultivated. But such standing is never guaranteed, and credibility on the world stage can be fragile. Given this, what are the key obstacles to advancing these conversations, and how can Canada effectively wield its soft power and commitment to multilateralism to drive progress?
Rae: The key thing, and you make a very good point, is that for us as a country, and certainly for the government that I represent, these issues are core. I need to know that I have the support of the government for which I work. That is an important part of how I have been able to operate in this forum—people know that what I say reflects the views of the Canadian government, not just in principle but also in terms of what we have done and what we are doing.
One of the critical factors for credibility and trust is that you do what you say and reflect that in both domestic and foreign policy. For example, having a feminist foreign assistance program and policy is crucial in discussions with other countries. Whether they already have such a policy, are exploring one, or are questioning why we have one. You explain the reasoning: the historic discriminations that need to be addressed, the systemic barriers that persist, and why it is important for Canada to allocate some of its discretionary funding to this issue.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge since 2020. First, the UN, like any organization, had to adjust to the lack of in-person meetings immediately. More importantly, I quickly became aware of the massive gap in the accessibility of vaccines and treatments when they became available in North America and Europe.
The challenge was ensuring that vaccines reached other countries. That was a wake-up call for me because, at home, governments faced tremendous pressure to meet domestic needs. At the same time, Canada made historic investments in distribution networks and vaccine access, particularly through Gavi, the global vaccine alliance based in Geneva.
Still, the pandemic underscored the reality that while we might think we are all in the same boat, we are in very different boats. Some are small and fragile, while others are large and secure. The large and secure boats remain steady when the storm comes, while the fragile ones take the hardest hit.
That realization led me to work on financing for development, which is a major human rights issue for many countries. Developing nations argue that human rights extend beyond individual rights, including social and economic rights—the right to development. The impact of COVID-19 set many things back, derailed progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and created significant debt challenges. The global response to the pandemic essentially shut down the world economy for a while, and the recovery has been uneven. Many poorer countries are still feeling the effects.
Then came the invasion of Ukraine, which immediately polarized relations between Russia, Canada, and other nations. The war in Ukraine has been a defining issue in international diplomacy.
The third major challenge has, of course, been the war in the Middle East—the Hamas attack on Israel, which led to Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza and the ensuing humanitarian and human rights crises. These have been incredibly challenging times, encompassing the full range of human rights concerns.
And now, with President Trump’s election, there is a new polarizing factor that we are all dealing with as well.
Jacobsen: There is a state of mind for ambassadors and diplomats. I participated in more than a dozen Model United Nations.
Rae: That’s where I started, too, by the way.
Jacobsen: I did two Harvard Model United Nations and several up and down the West Coast.
Rae: I did one in high school at the International School. We had one every year.
Jacobsen: For those unfamiliar, there are roughly 800 or more Model UN conferences held annually, spanning high school to graduate-level participants. At its core, Model UN operates on a consensus-building framework—a stark contrast to the often adversarial nature of politics. A seasoned politician like yourself would understand this distinction far better than I would.
With that in mind, how do you navigate deeply complex issues while engaging with individuals from vastly different cultural and political backgrounds? What strategies do you rely on to foster a mindset of consensus-building when tackling global challenges, ensuring that multiple perspectives are not just acknowledged but meaningfully integrated into the process?
Rae: You’re right. The working method of the UN is consensus. And frequently, it is not achievable. In the UN Security Council, for example, there has been a notorious deadlock in recent years. The UN Security Council depends on consensus but also requires unanimity among the permanent members. That has proven difficult on several critical issues, including Haiti, where Canada has been directly involved. When the UN Security Council reaches an impasse, the General Assembly, representing all member states, plays a much greater role. It becomes a venue where issues are worked on, resolutions are drafted, and votes occur. Not all resolutions pass by consensus—many are voted up or down—so the adversarial nature of some discussions can be quite intense. That dynamic has been very much in play. However, reaching a consensus has proven to be extremely challenging.
In many cases, to achieve consensus, the final statement or resolution says far less than it originally intended. As a result, concluding documents can be bland and lack bold, forward-thinking ideas. I often joke that when the United States’ founding fathers asked Thomas Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence, they did not have 193 people holding the pen. Of course, there were disagreements, but ultimately, the person drafting the document significantly influenced what it said.
That’s much less true here. You have 193 countries trying to hold the pen simultaneously. This creates quite difficult conversations about your red lines, what you are prepared to do, what you are not prepared to do, and how you can bridge gaps between us.
Most recently, the document we worked on last summer—the Pact for the Future—was quite a significant document because it was the first attempt to address the post-COVID environment and discuss the need to renew the work of the UN and its vision. Getting to a consensus was very, very difficult. The Russians tried to upset the apple cart, and the Africans said, “No, we’ve made enough compromises. We want to have something in hand and move forward with this document.” That changed the nature of the dynamic, which was quite interesting in September when it was all approved.
(White House)
Jacobsen: Another fundamental concept in international relations and diplomacy is the idea of trade-offs. Nations operate on different scales and under varying pressures, often navigating competing priorities. A well-known example is Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership in Singapore, where he balanced linguistic diversity, a complex religious landscape, and geopolitical tensions—managing relations with a rising China while maintaining strong ties with the United States.
Singapore’s small size allows for agility, but it also necessitates strategic concessions. Canada, by contrast, operates on a different scale as a member of the G7 and G20, with broader global responsibilities. In your role as ambassador, how do you navigate the tension between safeguarding national interests and upholding universal principles on the international stage? What strategies enable Canada to maintain this equilibrium in an increasingly complex diplomatic environment?
Rae: That is the challenge. You’ve described it very well. Historically, diplomacy has been one of the great challenges, whether it is about principles or interests. Diplomacy is about both. In the big picture, when you look at the current tensions we face with the Trump administration, Canada’s clear interest is in strengthening the multilateral system because we are a country that depends on a strong rule of law and independent international adjudication.
We depend on the networks of agreements we have reached on a wide range of issues, dating back to 1945 and even earlier in the case of the International Labour Organization, which dates back to 1919. So, it is important for us as a country to recognize that.
As a Canadian, I have felt more strongly here than in other circumstances that we are different from the United States. We have different views on how things should proceed, and they have their perspectives. Those differences have become even more pronounced regarding power politics, geopolitics, and their views on defending spheres of influence.
One reason we are where we are today is that we have to defend our perspective on the United Nations and how international systems should function. This sometimes puts us at odds with our largest trading partner and longest-standing ally. Managing that relationship and balancing these two ideas has been challenging.
But that is not the only issue. In many other situations, we must consider our position as a NATO member, a North American country, and a nation with overlapping international identities. Historically, we have been strong advocates for free trade and for a measured approach to immigration and migration—one that considers human rights while also addressing the realities of how many people a country can absorb at any given time. But then, what do we do about the rights of refugees? These are complex issues that do not lend themselves to a single answer.
My legal education and understanding of life have taught me that we often deal with competing goods, rights, and values. It is not simply interests versus values; it is different values in tension—the value of freedom and equality—and determining how they measure up. How do we navigate those trade-offs?
The reality is that it is a trade-off, and we need to embrace that concept. We need to accept that we will never achieve perfection or complete certainty. That has been an important lesson in my life—learning that in everything we do, by choosing to engage in political decision-making, we are making compromises.
People sometimes criticize politicians for making compromises, but everyone makes compromises. If you are in a relationship, you compromise as soon as you enter it. You will not always get your way; that is simply the way life works.
Jacobsen: How does Canadian diplomacy address emerging global challenges, such as pandemics, cybersecurity threats, and global warming?
Rae: The road we are on right now requires us to recognize that, for some issues, there is no purely national solution. Addressing climate change, for example, demands global cooperation—buy-in from all nation-states, with different levels of commitment depending on their emissions and pollution levels. But the reality is that we only find a way forward if we take climate change seriously, which we do as a country.
If we take it seriously, the next question is, how do we act? The answer is through treaties. Starting with Kyoto and continuing to Paris, we have consistently supported the treaty-making process because we understand that it must be done internationally.
Similarly, we will never ensure global safety during a pandemic unless we cooperate. As I have said many times, there was a period when airplanes and restaurants had smoking sections, but that did not work. It did not stop pollution, and it did not prevent people from inhaling secondhand smoke. In the same way, some challenges—like global health and climate change—require a broader, universal approach.
The second point is that we understand the long-term effects of colonialism as a country. The Prime Minister spoke about this in his first UN speech in 2016. Although we might like to think of ourselves as not being a colonial country, colonialism has directly shaped Canada because Indigenous peoples lived on this land long before settlers arrived. That historical reality has created a unique dynamic we have had to confront, particularly in the past few decades.
That history allows us to approach conversations with other countries about the impact of colonialism and historical injustices, such as slavery, with a deeper understanding. We do not dismiss these concerns. We do not say, “That’s not important,” or “That’s not our responsibility.” Instead, we engage with these issues in a meaningful way.
Some countries see themselves as exceptional—as if history and global norms do not apply to them. But when nations take that stance, they are deluding themselves. No country is truly exceptional in that way. No one is beyond the rule of law and can escape the consequences of history and circumstance.
When we see ourselves that way, we recognize our place in a multilateral context. However, we also live in a time when democracy is under threat, the rule of law is being challenged, and artificial intelligence is revolutionizing how the world operates and evolves. These forces will drive major debates and transformations within global communities.
We need to stay alert to these shifts and understand why defending the values and priorities we take seriously is in our national interest. The rise of authoritarianism, the increasing attacks on institutions simply because they exist, the pushback against human rights and democratic freedoms, and the backlash against LGBTQI+ rights—these are all examples of where we must continue to stand firm. We must stand up for what we believe in and what it means to be human.
Jacobsen: Mr. Rae, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Rae: Good to talk to you. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
David N. Gibbs, a historian at the University of Arizona, explores the forces that reshaped U.S. economic policy in his book Revolt of the Rich. He traces how a conservative coalition of business elites, militarists, and social conservatives emerged in the 1970s, driving an agenda of deregulation, financialization, and the erosion of labor rights. This alliance, Gibbs argues, concentrated wealth and power at the top of American society.
Though many attribute neoliberalism to the Reagan era, Gibbs reveals that its seeds were planted during Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Reagan merely built upon a foundation of pro-business policies already in motion. Today, the political right continues to mobilize working-class voters, while the left struggles with fragmentation. According to Gibbs, economic inequality endures because no political force has effectively organized the working class—a vacuum that conservative movements have skillfully exploited.
(University of Arizona)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In the 1970s, a coalition of business and social conservatives, along with militarists successfully promoted a free-market agenda. How did these seemingly disparate groups come together to drive that economic and political shift?
David N. Gibbs: The 1970s was a decade of crisis, marking a significant inflection point in U.S. history. It represented a transition away from the more labour-friendly policies of the New Deal and what could be called the Extended New Deal, which had moderated wealth distribution between rich and poor. That system broke down in the 1970s, leading to a sharp shift in American economic policy toward the free-market economics of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These changes resulted in policies that overwhelmingly favoured high-income individuals and large business interests while becoming significantly less favourable to labour.
This shift occurred through a deliberate and concerted effort by business interests and wealthy individuals. They had grown intolerant of the New Deal’s labour-friendly policies and sought to repeal them, fundamentally altering the character of American society—which they ultimately achieved.
The primary trigger for this shift was historically low profit rates. During the 1970s, profit rates reached record lows for the postwar period. Additionally, inflation was high, and contrary to popular belief, it disproportionately affected the wealthy. Thus, business elites and the wealthy faced a one-two punch: low profits and high inflation.
Their solution was to invest enormous sums of money in fundamentally reshaping American politics. They engaged in deep lobbying—not just lobbying the government directly but influencing the entire climate of opinion. The idea was that shaping the intellectual and ideological landscape would have a far more enduring impact than simply pushing for specific legislative changes.
This effort was carried out with an unusual degree of unity among upper-class interests. Usually, different sectors of business conflict with one another, but in this case, they set aside their differences to pursue a shared goal. This was a well-planned, strategic initiative. In my archival research, I examined private papers from individuals involved in this movement and was struck by the strategic focus they applied.
First, they united business interests around a common cause. They then allied with militarist interests—particularly the military-industrial complex, which sought a greatly expanded military budget. They created a powerful coalition that successfully reshaped American economic and political structures.
Finally, they recruited social conservatives who weren’t particularly interested in economics but were deeply concerned with social issues. These individuals opposed abortion and resisted what they saw as secularist trends in America. You might say they rejected the major cultural changes of the 1960s.
This was when the United States experienced a significant expansion of evangelical Christianity. There was an explosion of interest in evangelicalism, largely among people who were not focused on economics and not part of the elite. These were mostly members of the working and middle classes. Business interests, however, saw an opportunity to make common cause with them, pushing simultaneously for free-market economics, militarist expansion, and social conservatism. They succeeded in uniting disparate groups of people with little in common.
But they did this because they needed a majority. In private, they acknowledged that there aren’t enough of us elites to win elections. They recognized that a mass base was necessary. In some ways, they learned from the political left, which had long focused on mobilizing mass movements. Conservatives studied and adapted these tactics, understanding that securing a broad base was essential for long-term political success. That mass base, they determined, would be evangelical Christianity.
Thus, business interests poured money into evangelical churches and significantly shaped the Christian Right as a political force. Their overarching strategy was fusionism, which involved merging multiple sectors of the conservative movement into a unified coalition and emphasizing majority support to drive fundamental policy changes. They were highly disciplined and strategic in this effort.
Reviewing their private papers, I was struck by how these individuals formulated and executed their strategies. Watching how they planned and implemented their policies was reminiscent of generals orchestrating a military offensive. Their level of discipline and focus was extraordinary.
By the late 1970s, they had achieved enormous success. By the second half of the Carter presidency, they had already begun securing the policy changes they sought. These changes had the predictable effect of concentrating wealth at the top, lowering the population’s living standards. That was their project, and ultimately, they achieved it.
‘Revolt of the Rich’ by David Gibbs. 525 pp. Columbia University Press
Jacobsen: How did the ideological narratives crafted by this coalition redefine the public discourse on economic policy?
Gibbs: There was a clever and deliberate emphasis on language. Conservatives have always been skillful in shaping discourse, using short, simple phrases to redefine key concepts.
For example, they took words like liberty and freedom—which have a broad range of meanings—and redefined them specifically as freedom from government regulation. Of course, freedom and liberty can encompass various interpretations, but they carefully framed these terms to prioritize economic freedom, particularly for the wealthy.
That was their technique. They emphasized using market language to describe almost every aspect of human activity. This transformation extended beyond economics and deeply influenced the social sciences. Market theory concepts insinuated themselves into economics, political science, and sociology. The new language that emerged from Friedman and Hayek’s free-market economics reshaped these disciplines.
By contrast, the political left increasingly adopted academic jargon during this same period. Consider, for example, the term intersectionality. It appeals primarily to those with advanced humanities and social sciences degrees, but to people outside academic life, it comes across as vague and condescending.
Meanwhile, wealthy elites and the theorists they employed made a much better strategic decision. They communicated their ideas using simple, clear, and often Anglo-Saxon-rooted words, which made their arguments more accessible and persuasive. This gave them a significant advantage in shaping public discourse.
Jacobsen: What has been the role of academic institutions, think tanks, and intellectuals in legitimizing laissez-faire economics?
Gibbs: The widespread myth is that academics are overwhelmingly far-left and radical. That perception is only true on cultural issues. On topics like abortion rights, feminism, and transgender rights, universities do lean to the left. However, that is not the case when it comes to economics.
In reality, universities—particularly economics departments—are quite conservative. The image of the radical left-wing academic is largely a myth. Academics conduct much of the deep lobbying I have described. Wealthy individuals often hire academics as the intellectual architects of the social and economic transformations they seek.
Academics were valuable for two key reasons. First, they could develop new ideas that benefited the wealthy. Second, they possessed public credibility. Unlike traditional lobbyists—who are legally required to register—academics were not classified as lobbyists. They had an aura of objectivity, which made them far more effective at influencing public opinion and policy. They could advocate for corporate interests while maintaining a veneer of scholarly neutrality.
Academics played an instrumental role in implementing the policy shifts that made the United States a more plutocratic society by the decade’s end. I highlight two key networks of academics.
The first was the Mont Pelerin Society, founded in 1947 in Switzerland. This organization brought together corporate-funded free-market economists, including Friedrich Hayek, one of its founding members. By the 1970s, the Mont Pelerin Society had grown enormously in influence. Many of the free-market movement’s most significant economic innovations originated from economists affiliated with this network and its associated think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Hoover Institution.
The second major network consisted of militarist-oriented academics. A key organization in this area was the Committee on the Present Danger, which lobbied for a substantial increase in U.S. military spending. This effort aligned closely with the goals of free-market lobbyists, as both groups sought to expand corporate power—whether through deregulation or increased defence contracts.
This movement was led by Eugene Rostow, a law professor at Yale University, and included many top-tier intellectuals and academics. What emerged was a situation in which the conservative revolution in America—and it truly was a revolution—was made possible in large part by right-wing academics, who played a crucial role in bringing it to fruition.
Additionally, the Nixon administration employed policy strategists to embed free-market principles into federal institutions. Richard Nixon is a fascinating figure because the perception of him differs significantly from reality. Before conducting my research, I shared the common perception that Nixon was a political opportunist with no deep ideological commitments. It was often said that he had no ideas—only methods.
However, when I examined archival sources at the Nixon Library in California, I found a different Nixon—one who was highly ideological and closely aligned with the free-market economists of the Mont Pelerin Society, particularly Milton Friedman. Nixon was heavily influenced by Friedman and appointed numerous Friedman acolytes to key positions in his administration, especially within the Department of the Treasury. Through these appointments, he helped reshape the economic policy bureaucracy in a way that had long-lasting effects.
Furthermore, Nixon elevated the standing of Mont Pelerin Society economists within the academic and policy-making communities. He also worked behind the scenes to encourage wealthy Republican donors to fund a right-wing intellectual infrastructure, particularly by strengthening the American Enterprise Institute. At the time, the AEI was a marginal and poorly funded think tank. Under Nixon’s influence, it grew into a major Washington powerhouse, becoming one of the primary sources of policy innovation for the right throughout the 1970s and beyond.
I discovered that Nixon was central to building up this conservative intellectual and policy apparatus—and he did so with a clear strategic intent: to transform American society in a free-market direction.
However, Nixon did not remain in office long enough to see these policy changes fully materialize. Watergate cut his presidency short. Had it not been for Watergate, he would have overseen a more comprehensive policy transformation.
Although he did not implement these changes himself, he laid the intellectual groundwork for the free-market shift at the decade’s end. In this sense, Nixon was key in facilitating the rightward economic shift that would later define American politics.
(Library of Congress)
Jacobsen: How did the Carter administration continue neoliberal trends?
Gibbs: The neoliberal shift at the policy level occurred during the Carter presidency. Jimmy Carter was a far more conservative president than many people realize.
One of his defining traits was that he was anti-labor. People often forget that he came from Georgia, a right-to-work state with weak labor unions. The South, in general, has historically had weaker labour unions compared to other regions of the U.S., and Georgia was no exception. Carter served as Governor of Georgia when labour was not a significant political force in the state. As a result, he entered the White House with a fundamentally negative view of labour unions.
Carter was also a major advocate of deregulation. His chief deregulation adviser, Alfred Kahn, a professor at Cornell University, promoted policies that were not significantly different from those of Milton Friedman. Kahn saw deregulation as a method for weakening labour unions, and Carter supported these efforts.
Ultimately, many of the neoliberal policy changes often associated with Ronald Reagan began under Carter’s presidency. His presidency paved the way for the full-scale neoliberal transformation that would unfold in the 1980s.
After leaving government, Kahn privately stated that one of his primary objectives had been to weaken labour unions—and he succeeded. The trend toward deregulation began with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which was soon followed by the deregulation of trucking, rail, and, ultimately, finance. These changes had the effect of lowering wages in those sectors.
A particularly significant transformation was the deregulation of finance in 1980, especially the removal of interest rate regulations that had been in place since the New Deal. Under Carter, these regulations were abolished, leading to a shift toward financialization—the expansion of the financial sector from a secondary component of the economy into a dominant economic force.
This change greatly enriched the financial sector but had significant negative consequences. Financialization led to deindustrialization and lower investment in manufacturing, dismantling the high-paying blue-collar jobs that had been the foundation of working-class prosperity for decades. These jobs never returned, and working-class wages permanently declined as a result. Carter’s policies had a deeply conservative impact on American economic life.
Carter also introduced fiscal austerity, cutting spending on social programs while increasing military spending. Perhaps his most significant move was using the Federal Reserve System to engineer a deep recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, which extended from 1980 into 1982 during Reagan’s presidency, which increased unemployment as a means of fighting inflation.
While the policy did reduce inflation, it came at a tremendous cost—wages never fully recovered from the deep recession. More than Reagan, Carter was the president who initiated the policy revolution that shifted America rightward. Many of the neoliberal economic policies that people associate with Reagan were, in fact, first implemented under Carter. Reagan continued and expanded what Carter had already set in motion. Carter is often overlooked but played a pivotal role in America’s rightward economic shift.
Jacobsen: Why was the core emphasis on deregulation and fiscal austerity?
Gibbs: As mentioned earlier, deregulation had the effect of lowering wages. However, it was framed differently—supporters claimed it would increase productivity and lower consumer prices.
In some cases, this justification did not hold up. For example, airline deregulation did not lead to lower ticket prices. Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University, conducted research showing no long-term decline in airline ticket prices due to deregulation. The positive effects were oversold, while the real impact was downward pressure on wages—which I suspect was the primary motivation for pursuing deregulation in the first place.
Austerity also played a key role. Cutting social programs justified future tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy and large corporations. In fact, Carter reduced taxes for big business, particularly by lowering the capital gains tax, which made the tax system less progressive.
Ultimately, these policies contributed significantly to the concentration of wealth in America. The wealthy elites who orchestrated this massive influence campaign in the early 1970s had a clear objective: to redistribute wealth upward. By the end of the decade, they had largely succeeded under Carter.
Jacobsen: Can these be seen as deliberate efforts by the elite and the wealthy to entrench political and economic power via the state?
Gibbs: Absolutely. The state was central to this process because it was the state itself that carried out these transformations.
This is deeply ironic because the stated goal of the free-market movement was to reduce government intervention in the economy. In reality, government action facilitated the shift toward neoliberalism.
One of the most significant state-led efforts was financial deregulation. By removing government oversight of finance, policymakers enabled massive speculation in the financial sector, which became a major source of wealth accumulation.
No sector benefited more from this shift than finance—which became the dominant force in the American economy during this period.
The problem, however, was that speculation periodically went wrong, putting banks at risk of collapse. This introduced the issue of systemic risk—the idea that if a large bank fails, it can bring down the entire banking system and the economy along with it. This is exactly what happened during the Great Depression in the early 1930s.
As a result, large financial institutions required government bailouts to survive. This created a paradox: the financial sector pushed for deregulation, demanding that the government stay out of finance—until they needed to be rescued. At that point, they wanted the government back in.
In reality, the government never left finance; it simply assumed a new role—not as a regulator but as a safety net for large banks whenever their speculative practices backfired.
Another key area where the government played a central role was the expansion of the military. This became a major source of enrichment for military contractors, what President Eisenhower famously termed the military-industrial complex.
Overseas investors also supported military expansion, as they found American military power reassuring. The presence of U.S. military bases and aircraft carriers protected their investments abroad from revolutions, wars, and other potential threats.
So, while the right-wing turn of the 1970s was ideologically framed as an effort to reduce government intervention, the state remained central to the process—whether through bank bailouts, military spending, or corporate protections.
Jacobsen: Is this pattern being repeated today?
Gibbs: Absolutely. Much of what I described in my book about the 1970s has clear echoes in the present day.
One key figure in this ongoing process is Charles Koch, one of the richest men in the United States. His net worth, as of this year, is $67.5 billion. With this vast fortune, he has orchestrated a broad coalition of corporate and ideological interests to reshape American economic and political institutions.
A significant part of Koch’s strategy has been funding free-market think tanks at universities nationwide. The most recent estimate suggests that over 300 universities in the United States now host free-market think tanks or departments funded partly by Koch-affiliated interests.
This is a massive effort, including at my institution—the University of Arizona, which has one of these Koch-funded institutes. The goal is to subtly promote and expand free-market ideology within academia, inculcating these ideas among students.
Crucially, this is done quietly, in a way that most people do not realize is a corporate-funded influence campaign—which is exactly what it is. This process of deep lobbying first launched in the 1970s, has continued to expand and is now reaching new heights.
Another major example of this trend is Project 2025, a massive initiative to transform the federal government and economic policy. It is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, one of the think tanks founded in the 1970s as part of that decade’s influence campaign.
Today, we are seeing a continuation and intensification of the same political and economic strategies that reshaped the U.S. in the 1970s.
By the way, I don’t want to understate the extent to which Democrats also receive massive corporate funding and are influenced by corporate interests when it comes to economic policy. In fact, Kamala Harris received substantial corporate donations in the last election cycle.
Another major area is the culture wars.
One of the strategic tools used in the 1970s to distract the public—deliberately—was the culture war. The idea was to get people deeply divided over abortion rights, feminism, and LGBTQ+ rights, ensuring that these issues dominated political discourse. The goal was to prevent serious discussions about economic inequality and wealth concentration, which was accelerating during this period.
That was the entire point of the right-wing culture war strategy.
Jacobsen: What additional points should be made?
Gibbs: One key point I want to highlight is the extent to which the policy shift of the 1970s represented a major failure for the political left. That failure has echoes in today’s politics. In the 1970s, the left had significant potential power.
The public generally supported the continuation of New Deal policies—and, in some cases, even favoured expanding them further. Given all of this, the left had the potential to act as a powerful counterforce against the right-wing shift that took place. Yet, despite these movements, big business still prevailed—even in a democracy. That is remarkable.
What happened was that the left was fragmented, so there was no organized opposition to the business-led influence campaign.
The union movement was unable to work with other social movements. It had been ossified by the Red Scare of the early 1950s, during which many of its most talented organizers were purged. Those who remained were far less competent and unable to collaborate with the youthful radicals of the 1960s and 1970s.
Meanwhile, young activists lacked a unified organization. Instead, they were split into separate groups, each representing different identity-based movements—civil rights, feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmentalism. The contrast with the right is striking.
While the left was fragmented, the right was moving toward fusion—bringing together various factions into a single coalition. The right operated strategically, while the left rejected the strategy altogether.
The left seemed almost ideologically opposed to strategic planning as if it violated their principles. The right treated politics like a chess game, carefully planning moves, counter-moves, and counter-counter-moves.
The left never did this. As a result, the left’s fragmentation and lack of strategy made them incapable of stopping the right-wing juggernaut. This was further compounded by the fact that many identity-based movements were not interested in economic issues.
Another key factor is that by the 1970s the left had become an a predominantly upper middle-class movement. This was especially true of identity groups. Whereas leftist organizing had once been rooted in factories and union halls, by the 1970s, it had moved to college campuses and coffee shops.
The typical leftist was now college-educated and upper-income. For example, studies of abortion rights activists found that they were predominantly affluent, well-educated women.
This alienated them from working-class Americans, who had historically formed the left’s base. However, there were not enough affluent progressives to form a strong defence against the right-wing assault on living standards. A major conclusion of my book is that the victory of neoliberal economics was made possible in part because the left was so weak and ineffectual.
This dynamic has continued into the present day. Today’s left is even more detached from the non-college educated working class than it was in the 1970s.
Studies show that those who identify as left—figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters—tend to have higher incomes and education levels than any other ideological group. This is evident in recent surveys conducted by the More in Common Foundation and Pew Research.
This represents a historic reversal of what the left traditionally stood for. The modern left is no longer a working-class movement. And in politics, a basic rule applies: If the left does not organize the working class, the right will.
That is exactly what has happened. The Republican Party under Donald Trump has been effective in using working-class language and communicating in simple terms. By contrast, the left often relies on stilted language from university seminars.
A telling example occurred with Bernie Sanders, who was an exception in that he did manage to gain significant working-class support. At one point in the 2020 campaign, Joe Rogan—host of a massively popular podcast with millions of working-class, predominantly male listeners—invited Sanders onto his show.
After their conversation, Rogan effectively endorsed Sanders, saying he supported his candidacy. Then, Ocasio-Cortez and other activist left figures boycotted Sanders’ campaign, declaring they would refuse to support him if he continued engaging with Rogan.
Jacobsen: Why?
Gibbs: Because Rogan had previously made controversial remarks on gender issues. Sanders had to distance himself from Rogan, despite the fact that Rogan had just introduced Sanders to millions of working-class voters.
This was a revealing moment, underscoring the dysfunctional culture of the contemporary American left. Today’s left seems remarkably comfortable in its affluent bubble and is resistant to change or self-critique. That aligns with something I’ve come across before—Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s vice president in the 1970s, was effective at playing the populist card. Even if he was not sincere, he spoke about “snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals”—implying that American liberalism had become a movement of cultural elites. And liberals had no effective response to this accusation since it was bleakly accurate, and this remains true today.
The Democratic Party and the activist left have evolved together, moving away from working-class politics and toward cultural progressivism that primarily appeals to people with advanced degrees and high incomes.
And that is one of the biggest obstacles to addressing wealth inequality in the United States. Right now, the principal group mobilizing the working class is ironically the Republican Party—even though their actual policies actively harm working-class people.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of something someone once told me: “An option is better than no option.”
So, when the left does not step up, the right does—even if their option is terrible, it is still an option.
Gibbs: Exactly. That is true. The Republicans are actively competing for working-class voters, while the Democrats have largely failed to do so, ceding the field to the right. And the activist left is even more posh than the Democrats. So, the Trumpian victory last November should not be surprising.
Jacobsen: David, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it, and it was great to meet you.
Founded in 1962, the Seoul International Women’s Association (SIWA) is a vital space where women from diverse backgrounds connect, collaborate and effect change. SIWA has become a beacon of local and global impact by fostering cross-cultural friendships, empowering communities, and promoting mutual understanding. More than six decades later, the organization remains committed to solidarity, diversity, and inclusion—values expressed through volunteerism, mentorship, and leadership initiatives that unite local and international networks. At its core, SIWA aims to cultivate leaders among women and youth, advancing a vision of an equitable and inclusive future.
Sunghwa Han, SIWA’s board chair and executive director, sheds light on the organization’s evolution and purpose. Initially formed to support the spouses of diplomats and expatriates, SIWA has since transformed into a philanthropic nonprofit championing women’s empowerment and cultural exchange. Under Han’s leadership, the organization has focused on sustainable partnerships, youth mentorship, and inclusive dialogue. Initiatives such as networking events, volunteer programs, and leadership workshops have strengthened SIWA’s role as a community builder. In tackling South Korea’s gender equity challenges, Han emphasizes collective engagement over political rhetoric, underscoring SIWA’s continued commitment to fostering connection and progress.
(Seoul International Women’s Association)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m joined today by Sunghwa Han, the current board chair and executive director of the Seoul International Women’s Association (SIWA). Sunghwa became involved with SIWA in 2016 and served as the Welfare Committee Chair from May 2018 to April 2022 before assuming her leadership role.
Born and raised in New York City, Sunghwa initially built a career as a concert pianist, chamber musician, music journalist, and creative arts specialist. After relocating to Seoul with her family in 2012, she broadened her artistic endeavors through interdisciplinary collaborations. She holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music from The Juilliard School and a doctorate in music education from Columbia University.
Beyond her work at SIWA, Sunghwa has served as an advisor for Rotary International and continues to mentor Changemakers, a group supporting aged-out youth. She also spent two years on the board of the Hanatour Foundation.
To start, I’d like to ask: What were the historical motivations behind the founding of SIWA in 1962, and how has the organization evolved since then?
Sunghwa Han: In 1962—of course, I wasn’t there—but many diplomatic and expatriate spouses needed a support system. They sought to build friendships and foster community engagement through cultural exchange.
Over time, their efforts extended to supporting marginalized communities through fundraisers, cultural events, and volunteer-driven initiatives. As SIWA evolved, it became more of a philanthropic organization. Eventually, we transitioned into a nonprofit under the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s Foreign Ministry, which brought about significant changes and motivated us to expand our community impact.
Today, SIWA focuses on collective philanthropy and volunteerism. We believe that supporting marginalized communities is much more powerful when we collaborate and unite. Additionally, we strive to bridge local and international communities through cultural exchange and dialogue, which remains essential to our mission.
Of course, as you and I have already discussed, SIWA is also deeply committed to women’s empowerment and gender equality. We work to advance leadership and professional development for women while prioritizing inclusion and sustainability. One of our long-term goals is to sustain, grow, and expand our partnerships to further these objectives. Today, SIWA operates under two core pillars: community building and social impact initiatives
We have a hybrid leadership model with members from diverse cultural backgrounds. Our leadership team likewise reflects this diversity—we have leaders from South Korea, Switzerland, the UAE, Singapore, Australia, and many other parts of the world. While this structure presents challenges, we see it as a model for sustainable leadership in the future.
Jacobsen: What foundational principles guide SIWA’s initiatives?
Han: Our initiatives are guided by the principles of collaboration, philanthropy, cultural exchange, and inclusivity. Working together can create meaningful change and empower diverse communities. SIWA aims to foster social connections and create sustainable impact through leadership, education, and outreach programs.
We foster purposeful, action-driven networking. That means we always incorporate thematic networking and strategic partnerships whenever we host an event, whether a networking session or a project.
For example, we hold women’s empowerment networking sessions with Green Climate Fund Women. We also collaborate with embassies and local Korean organizations, but there is always a central theme.
It could be women’s empowerment, youth empowerment, partnerships, or collective volunteering. There is always a purpose behind it. Many organizations host purposeful events, but we ensure each gathering has a specific theme. The second core area is leadership development and mentorship.
We have various programs that foster young people to collaborate with us. We don’t call them mentees; we refer to them as partners with a purpose.
We have realized that working with young people creates synergy—they bring fresh ideas, and we bring experience and resources. Together, we can tap into different kinds of potential.
So, while we focus heavily on leadership, we don’t necessarily label it as leadership development—we see it more as a partnership. Recently, we have been focusing on cross-generational mentorship, particularly with high school and university students. Over the past few years, this has become a significant growth area for us. The third key area is knowledge exchange and professional growth.
We host panel discussions and a special Speaking Series initiative centering on storytelling. For these sessions, we invite ambassadors’ spouses, cultural center directors, and other professionals to share their personal and professional journeys.
Unlike formal speaker events, these sessions are designed to be interactive. Attendees have the opportunity to ask questions, fostering meaningful dialogue. We have found that intimate conversations create stronger connections between speakers and attendees. The impact is much greater because it highlights shared human experiences, regardless of where we come from. So, we hold many of these intimate speaking events as part of our community-building initiative.
The fourth and final core area is volunteerism and collective impact. One of our flagship programs is Coming Together and Empowering Together. We partner with nonprofits that support children in welfare centers.
As part of this initiative, we also bring in international high school students and aged-out youth to organize celebration days for children from orphanages. These events include art and sports programs, shared meals, and other activities. We bring together youth from privileged and marginalized backgrounds to foster unity, regardless of socioeconomic or cultural background.
Most importantly, when we brainstorm and plan these events, we approach them as equal partnerships. The goal is to create an environment where everyone contributes, learns, and grows together.
We also have a summer theatre program for children of unwed mothers. Additionally, we run an online English program that matches international high school students from different countries—such as Singapore—with girls who previously lived in welfare centers. Our many initiatives involve various partners, which is one way we facilitate meaningful and impactful networking.
(Seoul International Women’s Association)
Jacobsen: How do SIWA and the diplomatic community contribute to local charity and welfare through the SIWA Bazaar?
Han: That event was a signature initiative for us until the COVID-19 pandemic when we had to put it on pause.
Previously, the SIWA Bazaar was a major fundraising event where embassies had booths selling items from their respective countries, and all proceeds went to charity. However, we have since had to rethink our approach because Seoul has changed significantly. Unlike before, Korea now has greater access to international products, so the bazaar’s original purpose of showcasing foreign goods is no longer as relevant.
Previously, local Koreans would attend to explore unique international products, but there was not much interaction beyond purchasing. The embassies would sell items, raise funds, and donate to different charities. However, we are shifting toward more direct partnerships with charities rather than providing financial donations.
We still provide funding, but our focus has moved toward collaborative programs that create deeper, long-term engagement. Instead of simply donating, we are working on integrated initiatives that bring together embassies, universities, and cultural organizations.
For example, we plan a large-scale event where arts, culture, and philanthropy intersect. This will involve embassies, arts universities, and organizations that support dancers with disabilities. The goal is to foster meaningful cultural exchange while supporting local causes.
So, while we used to fund charities primarily through direct donations, we are now shifting toward arts—and culture-based partnerships that create a more sustainable impact.
Jacobsen: How has SIWA’s transition to a nonprofit corporation influenced its operational strategies?
Han: Yes, we have hybrid leadership, meaning our team is spread across different locations and operates in a collaborative model. Additionally, we are in the process of creating an online global community. This platform will allow us to connect members in Seoul and worldwide. We focus on three key themes: Reimagine, Reinvent, and Renew.
This means we are researching the root causes behind social challenges, especially those affecting marginalized communities. While we remain non-political, we recognize that many social issues persist, particularly regarding gender equality, which, as we briefly discussed, is still lagging in many ways.
By identifying underlying challenges, we aim to develop sustainable solutions that align with our mission while leveraging our global network to drive positive change. We know we cannot change everything, but we realize the importance of having more open dialogues to shift people’s perspectives. That is why we are focusing on a more sustainable future, emphasizing women’s empowerment, the empowerment of marginalized communities, and youth leadership.
The most significant operational or strategic change we have made is taking a long-term approach. We emphasize partnerships and collaboration because we cannot grow or sustain our initiatives alone. Instead of focusing primarily on funding, we rely more on human resources and potential. If we look at the bigger picture, our strategy is about fostering collaboration, building relationships, and ensuring sustainability. That is our core approach to strategic planning. I hope that makes sense.
Jacobsen: How does SIWA support members learning about Korean culture and navigating life in Seoul?
Han: We integrate cultural exchange and local engagement through community building and social engagement. As I mentioned, we offer various programs, including arts and culture, a Korean-speaking club, a book club, coffee meet-ups in the mornings, and volunteering at Anna’s Soup Kitchen.
These are not just events; they are designed to help people connect. For example, we gather participants’ perspectives instead of having social gatherings where people introduce themselves. Based on these collective responses, we shape future events around meaningful themes that strengthen relationships.
For example, our Korean Speaking Club is structured as a mentorship program where Korean women who are experts in daily life in Korea mentor younger international women. We also offer specialized programs for professional working women and expat spouses who are in Korea but cannot work.
Through these initiatives, we meet various needs while ensuring that, at the core, everything is about connecting people.
Jacobsen: What measures are in place to promote inclusivity and equal participation?
Han: Yes, that is a critical point. It is the most important aspect of our work. For example, this year’s International Women’s Day theme is “Accelerate Action.” We believe strongly in action-driven initiatives. One example is our collaboration last November with the Austrian Embassy and Ambassador Dr. Wolfgang Angerholzer on the Orange the World Movement, which raised awareness of and worked to end violence against women and girls.
Jacobsen: Yes, I am familiar with it—it focuses on preventing violence against women.
Han: When we hosted an event under this movement, we brought in diverse attendees. We invited young women from universities and international schools, ensuring a broad, inclusive conversation.
We aim to create meaningful spaces where diverse voices are heard and participation is equal and inclusive.
We actively invite people from different sectors and backgrounds. However, we have moved away from solely focusing on established experts with professional experience. Instead, we strive to bring in diverse voices—whether they are seasoned professionals, young leaders, or emerging changemakers.
For example, in our Orange the World Movement event, one of our leaders partnered with a desk officer at the Austrian Embassy to brainstorm and initiate the event–a great testament to the power of collaboration! She is in her twenties, and we valued her perspective as a younger leader. Of course, the Austrian ambassador also gave a speech, but it wasn’t just about the formal aspect. The key was ensuring that young voices were actively included as partners, not just attendees.
For our upcoming International Women’s Day (IWD) event, we are organizing an interactive panel discussion featuring a diverse lineup of speakers including an executive member from UNFPA, an expert in reproductive health and women’s rights, a senior representative from the Green Climate Fund, a representative from the British Embassy sharing his perspective on diversity and inclusion, a high school student from Seoul Foreign School, a Korean professional working woman, and a university student.
We intentionally include individuals from different cultural and generational backgrounds to create a more dynamic discussion. It’s not just about diverse attendees; it’s about ensuring that the panel reflects diverse perspectives.
Representation is more impactful than simply talking about diversity. This is why we prioritize partnerships and collaborations that bring together people from different backgrounds and generations. A visible, inclusive platform sends a stronger message than theoretical discussions about inclusivity.
Jacobsen: According to Statista, South Korea’s 2024 Gender Gap Index score is 0.752, indicating an average gender gap of roughly 30%. This places the country 94th out of 146 nations surveyed. Despite South Korea’s strong standing on the UNDP Human Development Index, gender parity remains challenging. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report ranked South Korea 105th in 2023, reflecting a paradox similar to Japan’s: a high development index but persistently low gender equality scores.
Given this context, what new initiatives does SIWA have to promote women’s empowerment and foster greater community engagement in Seoul?
Han: We have discussed this extensively with younger generations—both women and men–and one common challenge we’ve observed is the lack of open dialogue. Few spaces allow these conversations to take place, partly due to prevailing anti-feminist sentiments in Korea. This stems from the country’s feminist movement evolving through different phases, leading to varying perceptions and misunderstandings. Additionally, socioeconomic and cultural barriers play a significant role and must be explored more deeply within Korean society.
That’s why we are making greater efforts to create more opportunities for women and men to have meaningful discussions. However, if an event is explicitly framed as a gender discussion, men tend to disengage, viewing it as a political issue rather than a shared conversation.
Instead, we frame these gatherings around collective volunteering, cultural exchange, or international collaboration. This approach reduces resistance and increases participation. Our priority is bridging local and international communities.
Second, we recognize that change must start with younger generations. That’s why we are creating more projects that engage young people. For example, when events focus on empowering marginalized communities, young men and women are likelier to join forces because they don’t immediately associate it with gender politics.
We have to be strategic in how we approach these issues. Instead of saying “gender equality,” we use terms like collective volunteering or open dialogue—and then they come. Once they are in the space, we can naturally introduce themes of equity and inclusion.
We have learned that nothing will change without dialogue. This isn’t about us saying, “This is the correct way to think.” Instead, it’s about creating opportunities for discussion. Our experience speaking with young Koreans and international youth—both men and women—has shown us that this approach is more effective.
So, that’s what we are working on. We aren’t saying “gender equality” outright; instead, we introduce the conversation through volunteering, community service, or environmental projects—topics that make people feel more comfortable participating. The key is to bring people together first. We can start meaningful conversations and dialogues once they are in the same space.
Jacobsen: Sunghwa, I truly appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure to meet you.
Han: Thank you so much, Scott. It was lovely meeting you, too. Scott, thank you so much for what you’re doing. Please continue to contact us anytime. We’d love your support.
We need more people like you. Thank you, Scott. Have a lovely day.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, I’m honored to be joined by Dr. Leo Igwe, a renowned humanist and activist visiting from Ibadan, Nigeria. Dr. Igwe has spent much of his career championing the rights of those unjustly accused of witchcraft across Africa. We’ve known each other for years, and it’s always a privilege to speak with him.
Our focus today is the recent release of Mubarak Bala, the former president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who spent nearly five years imprisoned on charges stemming from a Facebook post. The ordeal began when Bala’s post—interpreted as critical of the Prophet Muhammad—drew the ire of S.S. Umar & Co., who filed a complaint alleging the content was “provocative and annoying.” Soon after, plainclothes officers, operating without a warrant, seized Bala from his home in Kaduna and transferred him to Kano, where he faced blasphemy charges under the region’s strict religious laws. His case bears striking similarities to other international incidents involving so-called cybercrime and blasphemy, such as that of Ayaz Nizami.
Now that Bala has been released, this case raises critical questions about freedom of expression and belief for humanists, atheists, and ex-Muslims in Nigeria.
Dr. Igwe, how do you interpret the implications of Bala’s lengthy imprisonment? What does this case reveal about the state of human rights and the ongoing struggle for religious and ideological freedom in Nigeria?
(Humanists International)
Dr. Leo Igwe: Mubarak’s case involves many issues. First, it highlights how regressive Nigeria remains, especially regarding the practice of Islam within the country. The form of Islam practiced in Nigeria could be described as “Stone Age Islam.” It remains trapped in medieval mindsets reminiscent of the era in Europe when the Church persecuted so-called ‘heretics’ or ‘blasphemers.’
Many people shy away from making this comparison. Still, within the Nigerian context, Christianity is comparatively more tolerant than Islam in terms of human rights and freedom of expression. Of course, Christianity has its issues, such as dogmatism and authoritarianism. Still, it is unprecedented in the history of Christianity in Nigeria for someone to be subjected to such extreme abuse for simply posting a critical remark about the Prophet. Mubarak’s case exemplifies the state of Islamic practice in Nigeria and the broader failure of the country to respect its citizens’ rights to freedom of religion, belief, and expression.
Jacobsen: In addition to ex-Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and humanists, what other groups in Nigeria face comparable forms of discrimination? This question carries considerable weight, given that Nigeria is the most populous nation on the African continent. Developments within its borders inevitably have a far-reaching impact across Africa as a whole.
Igwe: It is crucial to understand that in parts of Nigeria where Muslims dominate, Christians are often in the minority and frequently find themselves on the receiving end of accusations of blasphemy, sometimes even resulting in killings. Christian minority groups and individuals in northern Nigeria also face much of the persecution and violence Mubarak endured.
For example, we must remember the tragic case of Deborah Samuel, a college student in Sokoto. She made an innocuous comment on a WhatsApp group, which some Muslim students found offensive. This led to her being brutally attacked and killed by a mob. This incident serves as yet another example of how intolerance manifests in various forms across Nigeria, particularly in regions with significant religious tensions.
Her colleagues—fellow students—abducted her, beat her to death, and set her ablaze. This happened, I believe, in 2022. This shows that it is not just ex-Muslims who are subjected to these accusations and abuses. Christians within regions where Muslims are the majority are often targeted and killed.
That is exactly what happened in Mubarak’s case. Before they could get to him, the police “disappeared” him and placed him in what they called protective custody. But then you must ask yourself: who were they protecting him from? They were protecting him from the fanatics who could kill him at any moment.
But let us not forget Muslim minorities, too. It is not only Christian minorities or Christians in the region who are accused; Muslims belonging to minority sects, denominations, or traditions are also targeted.
We see allegations, attacks, killings, and other abuses targeting Muslims from minority traditions, Christians who live in these regions, and, in this case, Mubarak, who came out as an atheist or ex-Muslim. Of course, other ex-Muslims have been targeted. Still, some manage to neutralize the threats by moving away from social media or underground. What we have seen in Mubarak’s case is unprecedented in the country’s history.
Jacobsen: I’m aware of other cases like Zara Kay’s. She briefly appeared at the World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen. While not explicitly Tanzanian, she has Tanzanian heritage, much like I have Dutch heritage without being explicitly Dutch. Right? Zara was arrested while traveling, though her ordeal was much shorter than Mubarak’s. You mentioned similar cases earlier.
It’s a strange paradox—Mubarak’s case is unprecedented in Nigeria, which offers both an unsettling reality and a sliver of hope. On the one hand, this case represents the extreme, signaling the potential for cultural shifts toward more tremendous respect for the rights of nonbelievers. On the other hand, such incidents still occur. You captured this tension well in your recent BBC interview, saying, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Could you expand on that sentiment? I am deeply grateful for Mubarak’s release, but a lingering sense of injustice tempers its gratitude.
Igwe: Yes, of course. Arresting someone, disappearing them, unjustly prosecuting them, and sentencing them to 25 years in jail—this is a gross violation of human rights. In other words, Mubarak was meant to spend 25 years in prison for committing no crime. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to five years.
Of course, we are thankful that the sentence was reduced and that he wouldn’t spend 25 years behind bars. But no thanks because even the years he did spend in prison were unjust. He committed no crime, and there was no justification for him to spend even one second behind bars.
Just because someone makes an innocuous statement and expresses their rights like every other human being, clearly stating what they believe, there should be no justification for any arrest, incarceration, or prosecution. No one should spend even one day in jail because of that. That is why I said we are happy, at least partly because, as the saying goes, the worst did not happen.
Many people thought the fanatics might invade the jail, kill Mubarak, or carry out the threats they made. In Nigeria, we have had cases where fanatics invaded police detention centers and beheaded alleged blasphemers or desecrators of the Quran. We have also seen instances where mobs beat someone to death, lynched them, or set their body ablaze. These are not rare occurrences. But in Mubarak’s case, none of this happened.
So, yes, we are happy that he came out alive. At least he survived. But we are not happy about the circumstances. We are still at a point where someone cannot express what they think about a religion, its Prophet, its teachings, or its holy book without needing police protection. This situation is deeply out of step with civilization, enlightenment, and progress.
We cannot be excited about this. It is a sad reality that, in the 21st century, Africans—who endured slavery under both Arabs from the East and Westerners from the North—are now killing fellow Africans in the name of religion. These religions, the Abrahamic religions, were introduced by those who once enslaved us. And now, people who embrace these religions are perpetuating violence against their people simply to express their thoughts about the religion.
It is shameful. Instead of progressing, we should be working toward an African enlightenment—one that is critical and highlights the dark and destructive tendencies in Islam, Christianity, and all religions used to sanctify abuse and slavery, whether by non-Africans or by Africans against Africans. True enlightenment can only come from Africa, but it will remain unattainable as long as we continue placing individuals in protective custody simply because they are critical of these religious traditions.
We are holding ourselves back. We have internalized our inferiority, subordinating our humanity to the traditions of those who have historically tyrannized us. Worse still, we now use these same traditions to reinforce tyranny—not only over us but also by us. This is the direction we need to change. This is the path Africa must take to achieve true progress and liberation.
For me, this is a double tragedy. We must rally support, energy, and momentum to shake off this double tyranny. Otherwise, African enlightenment—that unique sense of enlightenment only Africa can deliver to the world—will never materialize.
Jacobsen: As Africa increasingly connects to the digital world, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of young people coming online. Meanwhile, much of the world is aging, with older populations less equipped to navigate the evolving tech landscape. Given equal access and opportunity, Africa’s youth could fully engage in—and even drive—the rapid, exponential growth of digital innovation.
Africa’s cultural and technological contributions could soon profoundly transform global communication and perspectives. This is particularly crucial as we witness the centralization of power in key sectors like communication technology. Such centralization rarely serves democratic interests. In the United States, power is concentrated among a handful of tech giants, predominantly led by men of European descent. Russia’s power structures revolve around a long-established oligarchy under the Kremlin. In China, state authority is consolidated under Xi Jinping’s rigid, state-controlled Marxist ideology.
Africa’s role in this equation is not merely cultural—though preserving and expanding indigenous languages and traditions are invaluable. It’s also geopolitical. Africa could become a critical counterbalance to the rising tide of autocracy that has defined much of the 2010s and 2020s. A freer, more diverse digital sphere may hinge on this contribution.
I realize I don’t have a specific question. Please share your thoughts on these dynamics and the role Africa might play in shaping a more democratic and inclusive online future.
Igwe: The thing is this: how much light does the centralization of power—whether in the United States, China, or Russia—shed on Africa and toward Africans? Whether it’s the authoritarian tendencies in China’s government, the oligarchy in Russia, or the centralization of power in a democracy in the United States, how does that enhance the humanity of Africans? For me, this is the central question.
I completely disagree with the idea that these centralized, oligarchic, and dictatorial systems somehow improve or enrich the lives of Africans. While diversity in terms of languages and cultural contributions is important, these global power centers continue to crush and take a heavy toll on the humanity of Africans.
In China, Africans are not reckoned with. In Russia’s oligarchy, the same thing happens. Even in the Trump administration, you could see similar tendencies. So, where is Africa in all of this? Where are Africans in these global systems?
These centralized powers—whether democratic, authoritarian, or oligarchic—still perpetuate systems that disregard and dehumanize Africans. That is the reality we must confront.
It is still the same old idea—that if you look like me if you are African, you should remain on the margins. You should be waiting for these oligarchic, dictatorial, and totalitarian systems to tell you what to do, where to be, what to say, and what not to say. And now, we are witnessing another form of blasphemy. What is it? It is this: do not offend these secular “gods” or so-called “god-sent” authorities.
If you offend them, they will come after you. Just like in Mubarak’s case, they will disappear you with impunity, or they will compel you to admit guilt, even when you know you are innocent. So, what is the hope?
The hope lies in the same courage we have seen throughout history. If we go back to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, it took immense courage for some to bring the light into the cave, even as they faced resistance from those still inside. Or consider the European Enlightenment, during a time when the Church held absolute control. Totalitarian regimes and authoritarian systems eventually collapsed, giving way to freer, more equal, and more just societies. This was only possible because people dared to not only speak out but to speak their minds.
It comes down to this: What do Africans think? What do we think? Just as Mubarak expressed his thoughts about the Prophet, asking what we want for ourselves is essential. What do we believe?
We’ve seen this dynamic play out in other parts of the world. For instance, consider the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Despite Russia’s overwhelming power, the question remains: What do the people of Ukraine think, and what do they want for themselves? Similarly, when figures like Trump or other dictators rise to power, they seem to project an impregnable dominance. But you know what?
There is power in words. The idea that “the pen is mightier than the sword” holds. Words, thoughts, and ideas can tear down physical or metaphorical walls. History has shown us this repeatedly. The walls of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes have fallen before, and they will fall again.
That is why Africans who understand their words’ power, worth, and place in the world must never stop speaking out. What they think and express might be the first crack in a seemingly impregnable wall of oppression. Slowly and steadily, these walls can fall—just as we saw in Germany with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
If walls can collapse in Germany, they can collapse elsewhere. They can give way to a society, a world where people are freer—whether they look like me, like you, or like someone else entirely. It all comes back to freedom. Without freedom, there is nothing.
If one part of the world lives freely while another part lives as enslaved people, none of us are truly free. We must continue to do our part to expand the circle of freedom despite the efforts of totalitarian systems to control the world and keep some people subdued and subordinate forever.
Slavery ended. And just as slavery ended, so too can these oppressive systems. The walls collapsed. Even the Soviet Union collapsed. So why can’t all oppressive systems collapse, too? There is still hope that the remnants or replicas of these survived systems will eventually go the same way. It will always return to freedom—a quest for a freer society and world.
Jacobsen: Leo, thank you for agreeing to this interview.
Lidiia Volkova serves as the Eastern Region Mobile Justice Deputy Team Lead at Global Rights Compliance (GRC), where she works closely with prosecutors from Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions to investigate war crimes. Her efforts have taken her to some of the most devastated sites in Donetsk, as she helps uncover the brutal realities of war.
One such reality involves Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs), whose numbers remain elusive—estimated between 6,000 and 10,000. Since 2022, Ukraine has orchestrated 49 prisoner exchanges, bringing 3,786 service members back home.
The conditions these soldiers endure are harrowing. Returned POWs bear the scars of torture, severe malnutrition, and psychological trauma. Many recount beatings, sexual violence, and forced labor—violations that flagrantly breach the protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
But accountability is elusive. Despite international law, Russia routinely flouts the Conventions’ provisions, frustrating attempts to protect those in captivity. Meanwhile, Ukraine works to counter this impunity by investigating reports of abuse and supporting repatriated POWs with medical care, counseling, and financial aid. Yet the challenge remains vast: identifying individual perpetrators often gives way to the need for broader, systemic accountability—something Volkova and her team are determined to pursue.
(Global Rights Compliance)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Lidiia. Do you have any reliable estimates on how many POWs have been captured and exchanged so far? While the number of exchanges is relatively easier to track, the total number of captured soldiers remains elusive.
Lidia Volkova: First, I will use some numbers and information from open sources, as well as the knowledge I have gained through my work. However, I won’t be able to share all the details because I sometimes work with confidential information.
No one knows the exact number of people captured except, probably, the Russian side. Some numbers appear in Russian media, but we cannot verify them precisely.
Reports from various sources estimate that 6,000-10,000 people have been captured. However, it is currently impossible to confirm the exact number. Tracking the number of people who have been exchanged is much easier. Ukraine frequently reports on this.
Since the full-scale invasion began on February 24, 2022, there have been 49 documented POW exchanges. There were also POW exchanges between 2014 and 2022 before this. Sadly, some individuals remain in captivity from the early years of Russia’s invasion in 2014. Some of these exchanges have included people who were captured long before the full-scale invasion.
My latest data on the number of POWs returned covers December 2024. It reports that 3,786 military personnel have been returned. This number includes only military personnel. Some civilians were captured or detained and later returned by Russia, but the reported figure pertains strictly to military personnel.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about what happens to prisoners of war once they return. What kind of physical and psychological conditions do these individuals typically face upon coming back? And on the darker side of this issue—are there cases where POWs don’t survive captivity?
Volkova: Every time we see people returning from captivity, their health condition is visibly poor, even from photographs. Most returnees suffer from significant weight loss, sometimes as much as 40 or 50 kilograms or even more. There are also injuries from beatings and torture, as well as conditions resulting from prolonged detention. I will discuss these conditions in more detail shortly.
Additionally, many suffer from chronic diseases that either developed in captivity or worsened due to inadequate medical treatment and unsanitary conditions. There are also long-term consequences of injuries sustained while in detention, as medical treatment is either not provided or provided poorly. Also, obviously, we’re talking about psychological and mental health problems. These can include sleep disorders, PTSD, and various other mental health issues that result from detention.
About conditions—sadly, in the past three years that I have worked with case files and information related to detention centers, they all look distressingly similar. I know we are discussing POWs, but for your information, these conditions are the same for civilians who are also being held—sometimes in the same detention centers, sometimes in different facilities. This is all part of a larger system organized by Russia.
Consistent reports of insufficient food, food shortages, and poor-quality meals concern living conditions. Overcrowding in cells and detention centers is a serious problem, as are unsanitary conditions, lack of access to clean water, and inadequate toilet facilities. Sometimes, detainees go weeks without access to a shower. As I mentioned, there is also a severe lack of medical care.
On top of these conditions, people in detention are subjected to ill-treatment, including beatings, sexual violence, and electrocution. We have frequently seen reports of prolonged solitary confinement, as well as various forms of humiliation. One such practice involves detainees being forced to learn and sing Russian patriotic songs or chant Russian slogans.
There have been multiple cases where individuals have been subjected to these abuses while naked, which exacerbates the humiliation. Another critical aspect of this abuse is that beatings and ill-treatment occur at every stage of captivity.
However, in many detention centers, there is a disturbing practice known as “welcome beatings.” Essentially, when detainees arrive at a new facility—whether their first or the one they are being transferred to—the staff beats them upon entry.
These “welcome beatings” vary in form. In some facilities, there are so-called “corridors of beatings,” where detainees are forced to run through a passage while being assaulted by guards. These beatings serve no purpose other than humiliation and establishing dominance over the prisoners, showing them the regime under which they will be kept.
There is extensive evidence that such conditions exist across multiple detention centers. POWs are often transferred from one facility to another, repeatedly experiencing the same abuse.
(Volodymyr Zelensky/Facebook)
Jacobsen: After enduring the initial phase of abuse, what conditions and challenges do POWs face in the long term? What becomes of their physical and psychological well-being in the aftermath of such trauma?
Volkova: After this so-called “welcome,” detainees continue to live under the terrible conditions I described. Reports from detention centers indicate that daily routines often involve forced physical exercises, further beatings, and continued sexual violence. In many cases, this is used as a form of punishment.
One known method of mistreatment is where detainees are forced into uncomfortable positions and made to hold them for extended periods—sometimes an entire day. If a cell holds multiple people, they may all be forced into the same position, and if anyone disobeys or falls, the whole cell can be severely punished.
If one fails or falls down, the whole cell is punished. Another important issue to mention here is sexual violence and the scale at which it occurs. I am not only, or rather not necessarily, referring to classical manifestations of sexual violence, such as rape—although that does occur.
A particularly common method of torture used by Russian forces is electrocution, often targeting male genitals. However, it has also been reported against female detainees. It is frequently employed during interrogations and is often accompanied by beatings, forced nudity, threats of rape, and threats of castration.
I know of at least one well-documented case that is widely recognized by Ukrainians: a Ukrainian POW was castrated on camera by Russian forces. We do know about this case, but much of the information we receive about deaths in captivity—including mass executions of POWs—comes directly from Russian sources. Often, these are things they post on their social media.
In some instances, when POWs are executed immediately after surrendering, the information comes from Ukrainian sources. There are rare cases where drone footage has captured such executions. Still, most of the time, the Russians themselves publish these videos—either as a form of bragging or as psychological warfare to intimidate Ukrainian society, including the military, by showing what happens in Russian captivity.
For example, the video I mentioned of a POW being castrated was released by Russians less than a day after the Olenivka detention center explosion was reported in the media. This was already a massive tragedy, and you can imagine the level of grief and anger in Ukrainian society at the time. On top of that, this video appeared.
Sadly, we are seeing more and more cases of people being killed in captivity. The problem is that we cannot even determine the numbers accurately because these deaths often go unreported for days or even longer.
Jacobsen: Are there any official numbers of detainees who have died in captivity?
Volkova: According to the Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General, we know of at least 177 documented deaths in captivity. Most of these cases involve the execution of POWs shortly after surrendering.
However, we do not know the full extent of the killings because these executions often occur in secret, without witnesses, and only come to light when footage appears on social media or is leaked. To break down the deaths in captivity further,
I would divide them into several categories.
One category includes deaths that occur inside detention facilities. The causes can vary—some result from explosions or targeted attacks. In contrast, others are the direct result of the abuse that POWs endure.
This includes deaths from beatings, torture, or untreated medical conditions. Many POWs suffer from chronic illnesses or develop serious health conditions in captivity that ultimately lead to their deaths due to medical neglect. There is also evidence of suicides. I have seen reports of at least one confirmed suicide in captivity and additional reports of suicide attempts by POWs.
Another category I would mention is the disturbing increase in publicly available evidence of executions. At least once a week—or sometimes once every two weeks—we see new videos, photos, or reports of Ukrainian POWs being executed by Russian soldiers. These killings often take place shortly after surrender or sometime afterward.
From what we have seen, the scenarios are almost always the same. Unarmed Ukrainian soldiers, having surrendered on the battlefield, should be taken as POWs under international law, which obligates the Russian side to accept them and not fire upon unarmed individuals.
However, instead of being taken into custody, they are often either shot immediately or forced to lie down, interrogated, and then executed.
There is also one particularly infamous video—widely known, though I hesitate to use the word “famous”—of a Ukrainian POW who was forced to dig his own grave before being killed. Unfortunately, such executions are not uncommon.
(Volodymyr Zelensky/Facebook)
Jacobsen: Let’s turn to the legal framework governing detention. Under humanitarian and international law, what responsibilities do detaining parties have? What protections are in place for individuals held during war or under occupation?
Volkova: If we are talking about POWs, their protection is governed by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which outlines the obligations of parties concerning POWs. It includes protections for their lives and property and prohibitions against mistreatment.
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions contains further articles applicable to POWs. However, these legal documents are decades old. While they are still in effect, they do not always offer full protection in modern conflicts.
That being said, one fundamental guarantee remains in place throughout all stages of captivity: POWs must be treated humanely. This broad principle prohibits violence, intimidation, and public humiliation of prisoners.
Beyond general protections, specific violations can escalate to grave breaches under international law. For example, killing POWs is strictly prohibited and constitutes murder or willful killing under the Geneva Conventions.
There is only one exception—though I hesitate to call it an “exception,” as it is a separate legal principle—which applies when a combatant pretends to surrender but resumes fighting. Under international humanitarian law, this is known as perfidy. In such a case, the opposing force is legally allowed to respond with force because the individual remains a combatant, not a POW.
However, if a soldier genuinely surrenders and lays down their arms, their killing is strictly prohibited. Moreover, suppose a POW is killed or injured in captivity. In that case, the detaining party is legally obligated under international humanitarian law (IHL) to conduct a formal investigation into the cause of death or injury.
For example, I previously mentioned the Olenivka detention facility, where at least 109 POWs were killed. To our knowledge, Russia has conducted no formal investigation into the deaths. Now, this is where legal protections become more complicated—specifically concerning sexual violence.
Jacobsen: Why is that?
Volkova: The Geneva Conventions do not explicitly prohibit sexual violence against male POWs.
As a result, legal action often relies on general protections against inhumane treatment and violence rather than a specific legal provision addressing sexual violence.
That said, Ukrainian prosecutors take an explicit approach when investigating these crimes. While international law may not classify sexual violence against male POWs, Ukrainian legal documents specifically highlight these acts to emphasize their brutality and widespread use in Russian captivity.
The various forms of sexual violence I mentioned earlier—including electrocution, forced nudity, threats of rape, and castration—are often classified as torture or inhumane treatment under international law. These methods extract information, punish prisoners, or exert psychological control. There are, of course, other violations I haven’t covered in detail. If you want me to elaborate, I can.
Jacobsen: What about the prisoners’ personal property?
Volkova: POWs’ personal property is protected under international law. It cannot be confiscated unless taken for security reasons and must be returned after captivity.
Another key legal protection is the right to a fair trial.
As you may know, Russia has conducted numerous trials against Ukrainian POWs, some of which are still ongoing. These trials violate international law, as POWs cannot be prosecuted simply for participating in hostilities—they are entitled to combatant immunity.
And here, it is important to emphasize that POWs have combatant immunity. This means they are protected from criminal prosecution for their participation in armed conflict—unless they commit war crimes or violate international humanitarian law or if they commit ordinary crimes unrelated to hostilities, such as murder, drug trafficking, or theft.
For example, suppose a POW commits a murder that has nothing to do with occupation or the conduct of hostilities. In that case, they can be prosecuted—but these are the only two exceptions under international law.
However, we have seen cases where Russia violates these legal principles by prosecuting Ukrainian POWs not for committing crimes but simply for participating in the conflict. In some cases, Russia targets individuals based on their membership in specific Ukrainian brigades or battalions, labeling them as part of so-called “terrorist organizations.” I will stop here to avoid getting too deep into legal details, but I’m happy to elaborate if you want me to.
Jacobsen: We have about seven minutes left. Let’s talk about what judicial remedies exist for returning POWs who have suffered violations of their rights—whether in terms of compensation, reparations, or legal redress.
Volkova: In Ukraine, a wide range of reparations and remedies are available to POWs upon their return. First, in terms of judicial remedies, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, along with the investigative bodies of the State Security Service, opens an investigation into every reported case of mistreatment of POWs. These cases are investigated to the fullest extent possible.
Additionally, Ukraine provides financial support to returning POWs, including a state allowance for those released from captivity. Judicial, psychological, and financial assistance is also available to help reintegrate them into society.
All of these forms of support must work together—providing only one type of assistance is not sufficient. Our goal is to offer a comprehensive support system for POWs upon their return.
One additional point I want to mention regarding judicial guarantees—and regarding POW mistreatment in general—is that one of the biggest challenges in these cases is identifying the perpetrators.
Since Ukrainian POWs are kept in Russia’s detention system, the rules inside these facilities are extremely strict, as you can tell from what I have described. It is very difficult to identify specific individuals involved in abuse because POWs are not allowed to look at the guards. They are often forced to keep their eyes down, cover their faces, or avoid eye contact when being moved around.
This is why focusing on individual perpetrators and the broader system of detention and captivity is crucial. We must investigate who is behind this system, including the military and political leaders responsible for organizing and overseeing these facilities. We can only pursue justice to the fullest extent by holding those in command accountable.
Jacobsen: What support exists for POWs dealing with psychological trauma?
Volkova: I’ll be honest—this is not my area of expertise, but I can share what I know.
Upon returning, all POWs undergo a complete medical evaluation, which includes physical and psychological assessments. They are then offered the opportunity to stay for a certain period in hospitals, where medical doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists oversee their health.
In addition, they receive ongoing medical care, including regular physical and psychological treatment. I am sure there are additional support programs, but this is not my primary field, so I can only speak to what I know.
Jacobsen: Lydia, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Roger Griffin is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on the socio-historical and ideological dynamics of fascism. His work also explores the intersections of modernity and violence, particularly the political and religious fanaticism that fuels contemporary terrorism. His influential theory defines fascism as a revolutionary form of ultranationalism driven by a “palingenetic” myth—a vision of national rebirth through a radically new order. Since the mid-1990s, this theory has significantly shaped the field of comparative fascist studies.
In recognition of his contributions, Griffin was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Leuven in May 2011. His academic journey began more than forty-five years ago at what was then Oxford Polytechnic, now Oxford Brookes University. Under his tenure, the institution has grown into one of the UK’s top new universities, with its history department frequently lauded for research excellence in the RAE/REF assessments of 2001, 2008, and 2014.
Extending his research on Nazi fanaticism and modernity’s impact, Griffin has also become a key figure in the study of terrorist radicalization. His contributions to understanding and mitigating radicalization reflect a humanistic approach to extremism within and beyond academic circles. His “heroic doubling” theory underpins a major research initiative involving multi-agency collaboration aimed at scientifically addressing the root causes of terrorism.
Griffin’s insights into fascism’s relationship with religion, ultranationalism, totalitarianism, aesthetics, and modernism are detailed in his major works, including The Nature of Fascism, Modernism and Fascism, Terrorist Creed, and Fascism: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Fascism. His scholarship is widely referenced, particularly in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and has garnered attention as far afield as South Korea, China, and Japan.
Griffin’s fascination with the subject was shaped by two formative experiences: a visit to the Buchenwald Concentration Camp in East Germany during the Cold War and his mentorship under Robert Murray, a scholar who studied fascism after fighting in the Allied campaign to liberate Italy from Nazi-Fascist control in World War II. Griffin’s research delves into the existential crises and cult-like ideologies that drive radicalization. These are exacerbated by the disorienting effects of modernity, which erode personal meaning and fragment societal cohesion.
Roger Griffin at Oxford Brookes University in 2013.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Professor Griffin, your research spans a wide range of topics, including the cultural, ideological, and modernist foundations of fascist movements, as well as the psychological underpinnings of terrorism. Scholars often trace their lifelong dedication to a particular field to a pivotal moment or a confluence of experiences. Could you share what initially sparked your interest in these areas of study?
Roger Griffin: Well, there’s a simple, narrative version of the story, and then there’s a deeper explanation. The narrative version involves two key moments in my life. The first was when I found myself in East Germany in 1967 during the Cold War while studying German literature and culture.
We were taken to Weimar to visit Goethe’s study, the small house where Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, often called the German Shakespeare, wrote much of his work. Later that afternoon, while staying in a Soviet-run hotel, we were bused to another location: the site of a Goethe oak tree, believed to have been one of Goethe’s favourites. However, this tree was located at Buchenwald Concentration Camp, where it was sometimes used to torture prisoners.
The tree had been used as a symbolic element by the Nazis, and there was a display detailing the atrocities committed at the camp. Interestingly, the exhibit that the Soviet authorities had installed presented Buchenwald primarily as a concentration camp for communists, redacting mention of the Jewish victims and the Holocaust. Confronted with this stark juxtaposition of German cultural achievement and the Nazis’ systematic inhumanity or “evil,” I began to study the history of Nazism in an amateur way. However, none of the available explanations seemed sufficient. For me, the economic crises and eventual collapse of the Weimar Republic didn’t fully explain how so many ordinary people became fanatical followers of Hitler or complicit in atrocities.
The second pivotal moment came when I got a job teaching the history of ideas at Oxford Brookes University, a smaller institution than the University of Oxford. The head of our history department, Robert Murray, was an American who had fought fascism in Italy during World War II. After the war, like many demobilized officers, he went to university and studied history. However, when he graduated, still was uncertain about the nature of the fascism he had risked his life fighting.
When he had the chance to design his history course, he devoted it to the question, “What is Fascism?” At the time, unless you were a Marxist—who often claimed to have the definitive understanding of fascism as a terroristic form of capitalism—there was what I call the “Babel effect”: numerous conflicting theories with no clear consensus.
On a more personal level, I had married an Italian, and alongside my knowledge of French and German, I quickly acquired a reading knowledge of Italian. This allowed me to read fascist writings in their original language, which was instrumental in shaping my definition of fascism. My definition is based on how fascist leaders and apologists, not their victims or enemies, understood it.
Finally, there’s an even deeper psychological dimension to my interest. I was born in 1948, three years after Auschwitz was liberated. That historical scar loomed large in the background of my life, shaping my curiosity and driving me to understand the nature of such profound evil.
As I grew into my early years, around seven, eight, or nine, I became aware that something terrible had happened in history shortly before I was born. I started discovering pictures of horrors. Browsing in bookshops, I found myself drawn to the books that had started appearing about the prisoner-of-war and concentration camps of the Second World War. It became, in a sense, an almost unhealthy fascination, perhaps even bordering on what could be called a kind of “pornography of horror.” I developed an intense interest in exposing myself to accounts of torture and what people are capable of doing to one another—topics that weren’t being talked about much at the time.
Additionally, my grandfather, as I later realized, was a religious fundamentalist. I didn’t have the vocabulary to articulate it then, but he held fanatical beliefs. Growing up in that environment of extreme conviction and the hatred they breed made the idea that “normal” people could harbor fanatical ideals unproblematic and accessible. So, when you combine all these factors, it now seems I was predisposed to try to solve—or at least confront—the enigma of fascism’s war against human rights and how to define it meaningfully for those researching it.
Adolf Hitler at a rally in 1934. (Andreas Wolochow)
Jacobsen: Is there a correlation between the psychology of religious fundamentalism, fascism, and ultranationalism?
Griffin: I believe so, though it is a far more contentious study area. My definition of fascism —which proposes that it is an ideology- and value-driven revolutionary assault on the status quo, drawing on mythic pasts and conspiracy theories to construct a new future and induce societal rebirth in every area — is already contentious. When you start delving into problems of its causation and the psychological mindsets that drive it, things become even more complex. I’ve developed my approach to this—a sort of personal methodology. I often compare creating academic paradigms to cooking a curry. You use familiar ingredients, but you make your mix and flavours. To give this approach an academic label, it’s called methodological pluralism, or you could call it a magpie approach—picking up ideas and theories that glitter and saying, “This is interesting,” and hoarding them in your mental nest.
Using this eclectic approach and partial insights drawn from a wide range of texts on extremism, psychology, and anthropology, I synthesized a theory that highlights the role played by the compartmentalization of the personality in the radicalization process. One foundational text for me is Robert Jay Lifton’s analysis based on his in-depth interviews with Nazi doctors who conducted experiments at Auschwitz. In his attempt to understand how seemingly ordinary people—doctors who led everyday family lives and loved their pets—became complicit in such atrocities, he developed the theory of “doubling.”
This theory posits that these individuals had developed a “normal self” and an “Auschwitz self.” When they put on their uniforms, they became “another,” someone ready to be manipulated by a totalitarian regime. In this state, those deemed subhuman by Nazi ideology also became “othered” by them. These individuals were stripped of their humanity and any claim to human rights or humane treatment. At that point, torturing and murdering them was no longer seen as a moral crime because the emotional threads of empathy and compassion had been severed by the doctors’ identification with the Nazi ideological machine.
Lifton’s theory of doubling has enormous implications and extensions. Interestingly, Lifton went on to write two other crucial books for me. One was a study of the fanatical pseudo-religion in Japan that culminated in the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cell. The cult members, ordinary people in many ways, believed they had a sacred duty to hasten the end of the world by triggering apocalyptic events, such as the mass killing of thousands in the subway. Lifton’s earlier interviews with Auschwitz doctors equipped him with the mental tools to understand how these seemingly normal Japanese individuals became radicalized to the point of wanting to hasten the end of history.
The word “fanatic” has fascinating roots. It comes from the Latin word fanum, meaning temple, and is linked to the words profane and profanity, which refer to actions outside the sphere of the holy. Fanaticism can be understood as a form of “holy madness.” For those gripped by it, their actions are not seen as nihilistic or terroristic but as a sacred duty. They do not feel guilty because they believe they fulfill their religious mission or political duty.
I’ve adapted Lifton’s theory of doubling by incorporating my theoretical contributions to explore the radicalization process. It often begins with someone experiencing an existential crisis—not necessarily at a high intellectual level but a deeply cosmological or emotional one. These individuals are often disoriented and disaffected, particularly during periods of social breakdown, such as war, plague, or revolution.
In these moments of profound disorientation, people can latch onto a simplistic, paranoid worldview—like a drowning person grabbing onto a plank of wood. This revelatory, deeply mythic worldview diagnoses the root causes of chaos and misery while creating a starkly dualistic Manichean division of good and evil.
And the evil ones—anybody belonging to that world—are transformed into “monsters” or “subhumans,” no longer is fully human. If you compare the psychodynamics of ISIS with Nazism or any other extreme form of political or religious fanaticism, it soon becomes clear that. They all function in a very similar way. They provide emotionally stunted, unindividuated individuals who feel lost and disoriented with a totalizing worldview, which gives them a sense of identity, purpose, and, very importantly, agency. Armed with this, they feel empowered to act on the world through a cathartic act of violence against the perceived enemy or sources of evil. This can result in their sense of mission to carry out a terrorist attack on a symbolic person or institution—a parliament, a bank, or even something like a same-sex wedding—whatever the mind seizes as an emblem of the “evil” destroying humanity. In their view, these acts are always idealistic and heroic, intended to “save the world” whatever the personal cost.
Richard Baer, Josef Mengele, and Rudolf Höss in Auschwitz, 1944. (Jewish Virtual Library)
This is a simplistic summary of my retrospective theory of the process of extremist and terrorist radicalization, but I was only led into this area of speculation after 9/11. That event forced me to apply my obsession with understanding what turns ordinary people into Nazis or other forms of fascism to the question of what could drive some educated, civilized Muslims, including a group of engineering postgraduates studying in Hanover, to participate in the destruction of the Twin Towers. It felt like I was witnessing a powerful example of the destructive fanaticism I had been studying for years as a historical phenomenon that safely belonged to the past.
In the light of the approach I developed, these individuals were not raving lunatics or hate-filled sociopaths but a split within their personality—between modern Western secular values and the worldview of the cult or ideology they embraced. Once you are part of a cult, you abandon personal responsibility. You don’t challenge or question; you conform entirely. In Nazi Germany, this was codified in the “Führerprinzip,” or “leader principle,” which dictated that all authority came from above. Challenging it was considered sedition. Islamism by an ideologue such as Qtub makes a similar claim on the believer: it tells believers disturbed by modernity what they must do to save their community and the wider world from moral decay and destruction.
This dynamic completely relieves the individual of personal moral responsibility for the atrocities they commit; on the contrary, it heroizes them. In this way, all semi-ideological or fully ideological acts of violence against perceived enemies are fundamentally similar at a psychodynamic level, contrasting the ideologies or cultures that rationalize them.
Jacobsen: How do the psychological forces you’ve studied manifest across different regions in today’s global landscape? Specifically, how do individuals who are not officially classified as “enemies of the state” come to embrace extremist ideologies and carry out attacks in the name of what they perceive as a “righteous cause,” seemingly without any moral conflict or hesitation?
Griffin: When viewed through the lens of modernity, the conditions of the modern world reveal both a key driver and effect of modernization worldwide: secularization and the erosion or loss of a metaphysical worldview that explains reality. Secularization represents the death of self-evident, totalizing truths. There was little room for self-doubt or relativism in earlier cultures—whether the Aztecs, the Maya, or the feudal Japanese. Religions like those of the Abrahamic traditions might recognize the brotherhood of other religions “of the book.” Still, within each, the belief was absolute. For those within the faith, there was no question of the existence of God or an ultimate purpose enshrined in a traditional religious faith and practice.
This worldview didn’t necessarily prevent violence—it could lead to ritual violence or wars—but it didn’t result in mass persecutions in the way we see today or the attempts to completely transform the world through the conquest of society both domestically and through territorial expansion. This was partly due to geography and technology: the world was less connected, and movement between cultures was limited. There were generally small warrior elites, and even the massive military conquests of Alexander the Great and Genghis Kahn did not lead to secularizing society and abolishing religious culture.
In the modern world, however, everything has become porous. Barriers—cultural, physical, and political—have eroded. Today, major religions exhibit significant internal and external conflict. Consider the Myanmar Buddhists attacking Muslims, the Chinese repression of Uyghurs, or sectarian violence within Islam. These conflicts show that the boundaries between previously separate worlds have dissolved. No wonder billions of human beings now live out a permanent identity, purpose, and belonging crisis.
For example, the term “ghetto” originated in Venice, where Jewish communities lived apart but interacted with Christian communities on a business level. While they were separate, there was still a degree of coexistence, and certainties, rituals, and traditions remained intact within each community. However, in today’s interconnected world, that separation and autonomy of communities no longer exist, creating a fertile ground for ideological and cultural clashes and the loss of meaning known by sociologists as “anomie.”
Now, all that historical separateness has broken down. It’s extraordinarily easy for people to feel that the world is falling into an abyss of apostasy, non-belief, materialism, immorality, gender fluidity, and interpenetration of identities. Everything can seem in flux, elusive, and menacing. What’s one of the main targets of populist nationalists? Multiculturalism. There’s almost a pathological fear of the “soup”—the idea that society has become a blend of different creeds, genders, peoples, languages, skin types, and abilities. This diversity threatens those seeking ethnic order, religious purity, or cultural homogeneity. There is a longing for absolute “difference” and ethnic/cultural demarcations to be restored.
For those ill-equipped to cope with the sheer complexity of the modern world, the explosion of cultural mixing and diverse realities brought by modernity can create a tremendous sense of decadence, experienced as evil, as if the world is falling apart. To see this crystallized into dogma, look at the U.S. Christian sect known as Dispensationalists. They are utterly fanatical about the end of the world, interpreting earthquakes and other disasters as symptoms of the “end times,” and instinctively support Donald Trump.
Modernity divides people in this context. Some embrace the flux, the intermixing of cultures, languages, and belief systems. They enjoy the unknown and the richness of diversity. Traveling or encountering otherness invigorates these people, not threatens them. For them, the infinite variety of the modern world is something to marvel at. Thus, they instinctively embrace a universal, transcultural form of humanism, secular or religious.
Others, however, feel overwhelmed. The American poet T.S. Eliot once wrote, “Human beings cannot bear very much reality.” People have different thresholds for coping with the immensity of the cosmos and the diversity of ways of living and thinking. For those with a low tolerance for this diversity, there’s a nostalgia for purity—ethnic purity, cultural purity, or national sovereignty. They are drawn to movements like “Make America Great Again” or similar nationalist sentiments in Russia, Britain, and France. This often leads to exclusionary ideologies, where even people born in a country are deemed not to belong because they lack some “essence”—be it Frenchness, Englishness, or Canadianness.
Of course, this idea of national or racial purity is historically baseless. Even the Inuit and other Indigenous groups migrated from somewhere. The notion of a primordial, pure race or culture is a fallacy. Interestingly, there was one fascist movement, led by Plínio Salgado in Brazil, that celebrated racial mixing. Salgado argued that Brazilianness was defined by blending Spanish, African, and Indigenous Amazonian ancestries. This stands out as a unique take on ultranationalism in the context of fascism, which is typically obsessed with notions of purity and retrieving some cultural essence.
However, for most nationalists and fundamentalists, whether religious or secular, there’s a profound fear of “the other.” This fear drives violence, hatred, and demonization in the modern world.
Jacobsen: We’ve identified the problems and explored methodological pluralism, integrating evidence, case studies, and various academic approaches to understanding these challenges. But what about practical solutions? What advice would you offer citizens living under authoritarian or theocratic regimes—or even in majoritarian democracies with autocratic tendencies? How can individuals and states counter the rise of fascist ideology, intolerance, and acts of terror driven by hatred?
Griffin: That’s a tough question. To borrow a phrase from an early Bob Dylan song: “I try to harmonize with songs, the Lonesome Sparrow sings.” In other words, I accept the world’s chaos, carve out a little piece of it, and write books about modern reality’s complex, dynamic nature. They are useless in terms of their practical effects in countering fanaticism and extremism. My theory has informed one or two initiatives to combat terrorism, but I have no illusions about the overall impact of my publications. I take part in debates in the press about whether Trump is a fascist and so on, but I know in advance that I would never change the mind of any Trump supporter and would be instantly demonized as a “woke” academic and thus “the enemy.” In short, I will give you a despairing answer about combating anti-humanistic ideologies.
Liberal humanism—the deep-seated empathetic commitment to the universality of human rights and the equal humanity of all people—is a minority view. It is not inherently secular, however. This belief has existed and has been fought for within religious traditions. I’m not talking about Western modernity here. Good Buddhism and good Hinduism—if you look at the original Hindu gurus, for instance—contained this sense of universal humanism. You have to read their works to see that.
But this lack of fear of the “other,” embracing the richness of humanity and multiculturalism is now an increasingly minority response to modern existence. All over the world, except in a few rare countries such as Scandinavia—Finland, Norway, and Sweden, for example (and even there, Denmark now has a strong populist movement) — people like me, humanists, have our backs to the wall.
The Enlightenment hope—that the world would become more enlightened with prosperity, education, and growing social equality—has been proven to be a myth. That hope was formulated without any awareness of ecological crises, nuclear weapons, or the complexities of modernity. It was whistling in the dark. So-called progress has created conditions of anguish, depression, uncertainty, confusion, and a pandemic of anomie. It breeds simplistic, hate-driven visions of the world.
And that’s what we saw inaugurated and ritualized yesterday with Trump’s “brave new world.” Hearing people whoop and cheer as he announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the opening of more opportunities for oil drilling was terrifying. It felt like bad science fiction—a dark, apocalyptic satire like Dr. Strangelove from the 1960s—but it’s real.
I am a pessimist. I believe humanity is in the process of destroying this phase of civilization. The world will collapse into wars and poverty as the ecological crisis intensifies and natural disasters increase. Wars for resources will erupt, sectarian hatreds will deepen, and nations will turn against one another. There will likely be massive deaths—what I call a “mega-death” event—or a prolonged period of devastation.
I don’t believe humanity will disappear entirely, but some Hollywood apocalyptic scenarios may prove alarmingly accurate. The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind, though its idea of Americans moving to Mexico and living happily ever after hosted by the Mexican government because the U.S. is frozen solid is absurdly optimistic.
So, I conclude that I can’t do much more in my small life. I’ll be 77 next week. Right now, I focus on staying active with my wife and looking after my mother-in-law, her uncle, and our son. This pathetic answer resonates sadly with a recent bestseller called the “Let Them Theory” by Mel Robbins, but at this point, I can’t offer you anything grand or heroic.
I don’t foresee a great counter-movement of heroic liberals or academics rising to stem this tide of intolerance, conspiracy theory, and scapegoating. Populism and retrenchment into ethnic, ideological, or religious fortresses are taking place in various forms worldwide, whether in Viktor Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” in Hungary, Putin’s ethnocentrism in Russia, or China’s aggressive nationalism. The world is retreating into narrow definitions of identity, which have lethal consequences for demonized “others.”
We will likely see a world dominated by illiberal democracies or autocratic states. Much like antifascists during the Nazi regime in World War II, people like me will face a choice. Whether to be a coward, keep our heads down and survive or be heroic and join some underground resistance and face persecution and death.
It’s a terrifying prospect, and I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t see any “grand narrative” solutions right now.
And if the geniuses of history—people like Gandhi, Bob Dylan, and the visionaries who created the United Nations—haven’t been able to stem the tide of leaders like Trump, Putin, or the regime in North Korea, then who am I to think I can achieve anything except stand up for liberal humanism?
I’m sorry to sound so pessimistic.
However, I will end on a more positive note with a quote from Nietzsche, who said that every great book written against life is an invitation to live life more fully. Perhaps every interview that seems like an invitation to despair is, paradoxically, an incitement for the reader to rally inner resources of idealism, hope, and heroism—and to live life more fully.
Jacobsen: Dr. Griffin, thank you very much for your time.
Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive of ODI Global, has built a career at the intersection of humanitarian aid, peacebuilding, and international development.
Her advisory roles have included positions with The New Humanitarian, SOS Sahel, Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Centre, the UN Association of the UK, and the UN Population Fund’s ICPD25 High-Level Commission. In 2016, she was part of the Independent Team of Advisers tasked by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) with reforming the UN development system.
Pantuliano’s fieldwork experience includes leading a high-profile UN humanitarian response in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, directing the Peacebuilding Unit for UNDP Sudan, and observing the IGAD-mediated Sudan peace process. She has also lectured at the University of Dar es Salaam and holds a doctorate in Politics and International Studies from the University of Leeds.
Recognized for her leadership in peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, and development, Pantuliano was named a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) in the 2024 New Year Honours. Her writings explore the interconnected crises of conflict and climate change, particularly how desertification worsens tensions between pastoralists and farmers in vulnerable regions.
Through ODI Global’s podcast Think Change, Pantuliano amplifies critical issues facing marginalized communities. She highlights the growing disparity between Khartoum’s elites, who can escape instability, and those in remote regions left to endure survival-level hardships. A vocal critic of international aid’s short-term focus, she calls for a greater emphasis on sustaining livelihoods and education during protracted crises. Her advocacy for decentralized governance underscores the need to empower local civil society and rethink policy frameworks to enhance long-term effectiveness.
(Center for Disaster Philanthropy)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Sarah. Although you haven’t visited Sudan in several years, you’ve worked extensively on issues related to the country and have closely followed recent developments. The ongoing conflict in Sudan is crucial to highlight, especially given that Western media often prioritizes crises like Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine—both undeniably significant—while other conflicts are overshadowed. How has humanitarian access in Sudan evolved over the past five years as the conflict has deepened?
Sara Pantuliano: I appreciate your focus on Sudan. As you mentioned, much of the global media’s attention is directed toward other crises. Still, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is one of the largest in the world today. Even though some conflicts appear more dramatic and are more frequently featured in news coverage, Sudan’s crisis is staggering in terms of casualties, displacement, and the sheer number of refugees created by this latest wave of violence.
From the outset, humanitarian access has been extremely limited, but I must clarify what we mean by “access.” If we are referring to international humanitarian organizations’ ability to deliver aid, that has been severely restricted since the conflict began—and it remains so today. Some cross-border access from Chad is available for those in Darfur, but very little access elsewhere, and only a small amount of humanitarian aid reaches eastern Sudan.
However, one of the most remarkable aspects of the response has been the strong civil society-led mutual aid and support network. This is a powerful and transformative model of assistance in Sudan. The problem is that it lacks adequate funding. There is very limited financial support for the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) and local grassroots initiatives providing lifesaving services.
The ERRs are doing extraordinary work by establishing soup kitchens, supporting medical care, and keeping some schools operational. However, funding is not reaching them due to the fiduciary constraints that large donors face when attempting to fund local civil society groups and grassroots resistance committees directly. Additionally, the usual channels—where funding flows from the United Nations to NGOs and civil society organizations—are functioning poorly, with very little funding reaching local responders.
I have been advocating strongly for this issue alongside many colleagues. Ultimately, these local groups are highly effective. They are doing an incredible job on the ground. They are the backbone of the humanitarian response and the primary source of relief for Sudan’s distressed population.
Chadian soldiers at the Chad-Sudan border monitoring refugees fleeing the civil war in Sudan. (Voice of America)
Jacobsen: Regarding humanitarian crises, one issue that tends to resonate more with North Americans is the ongoing wildfires in California, particularly in and around Los Angeles. These fires have garnered significant attention, partly because they’ve impacted affluent communities and destroyed high-value properties in an area with steep real estate costs. This has elevated their importance in terms of economic consequences for Americans.
However, climate change isn’t just a problem for California—it’s a global crisis. How is anthropogenic climate change intersecting with and exacerbating the humanitarian challenges in Sudan?
Pantuliano: Yes, massively. I am certain that the acceleration of climate-related pressures in Sudan has been a compounding factor in many aspects of the crisis. There has been ongoing local-level conflict between pastoralists and farming communities for decades.
The aggressive process of desertification in Sudan’s peripheral regions has been a significant driver of this conflict. As pastureland becomes increasingly scarce and water sources dwindle, competition over natural resources intensifies.
Unfortunately, political leaders have exploited and manipulated these tensions, turning resource disputes into broader conflicts.
Many of the militias currently fighting are recruited from these struggling groups—people relying on land access for grazing and farming. Since pastures no longer exist as they once did, herders are being forced onto farmland, leading to encroachments and violent clashes with farming communities. This dynamic has long been at the heart of Sudan’s conflicts.
For many years, during my work in Sudan, notably when I led the Peacebuilding Unit at UNDP, we focused on natural resource management and conflict mitigation. We knew that competition over land and water was a major driver of conflict and that these disputes could be manipulated for wider political purposes. However, despite their pivotal role in Sudan’s instability, the so-called ‘international community’ has paid limited attention to these structural issues.
I also want to address your earlier point about the Los Angeles wildfires and the role of wealth in shaping how crises are perceived. A notable difference in this latest iteration of the Sudanese conflict is that, for the first time, the fighting has been concentrated in Khartoum.
Khartoum is a wealthy capital city where Sudan’s political and economic elites reside. Many of these elites can relate to the type of material loss seen in Los Angeles’ wealthier neighbourhoods following the wildfires. This starkly contrasts past conflicts, which were largely confined to Sudan’s peripheral and poorer regions. Historically, the elites in Khartoum were not deeply concerned because these conflicts did not directly affect them.
This time, however, the situation is different. The heart of the “imperial city,” as Khartoum is known, has been devastated. Khartoum, a center of culture, tradition, and art, was home to luxurious villas, historic landmarks, and invaluable cultural artifacts. Many of these estates and treasures have now been destroyed or looted.
For the first time, people from the peripheries—neglected for generations and exploited by external forces—have entered the capital. Many had nothing; others had a lot in the culture, history, and art embedded in the city’s grand homes and institutions. Even the National Museum in Khartoum, which houses Sudan’s cultural heritage, has not been spared.
This destruction is the result of decades of inequality, structural neglect, and deep-seated disparities that have long defined Sudan’s political and social landscape.
Jacobsen: When you compare the perspectives of Sudan’s elites with those from the marginalized peripheries—individuals who have little to nothing—what commonalities and differences emerge in their understanding and responses to the ongoing humanitarian crisis?
Pantuliano: The people in Sudan’s peripheries are, first and foremost, focused on survival because they have fewer resources and far fewer options. In contrast, the wealthy in Khartoum have networks—they can often find ways to escape and seek refuge.
That has been the case for many in Khartoum. They have relocated to Cairo, London, the Gulf, Nairobi, or other cities with family members, diaspora connections, or financial resources to draw from. Many also have money in foreign bank accounts, which has allowed them to flee and rebuild their lives elsewhere.
Of course, this is still a massive disaster for them—it is devastating to lose everything. However, their immediate survival is not as urgent as that of those in the peripheries, where people struggle to feed themselves and their children and stay alive.
We have already seen countless deaths due to acute food insecurity, which has had a devastating impact on those without resources. Many depend on aid, whether domestically mobilized or provided by international agencies.
That said, some common struggles are shared by the elites and those from lower-income communities. Access to education is a major issue for children, regardless of class. Schools have not operated for over a year and a half, leaving an entire generation at risk of losing their future. Additionally, medical assistance is either extremely limited or nonexistent in many areas, affecting both the rich and the poor. Some challenges in this crisis are universal.
(Voice of America)
Jacobsen: Let me offer a comparable example. Just yesterday, I interviewed someone about judicial reform efforts in Ukraine, a process complicated by ongoing war, corruption, and propaganda. Implementing reform under normal circumstances is difficult enough—but it’s a whole different challenge when you’re under daily bombardment. After just two weeks of constant air raid sirens, people began tuning them out entirely.
To provide readers with a sense of the conditions in Sudan: When experts are working amid a humanitarian crisis, armed conflict, or both, how do these realities complicate efforts to document human rights abuses and assess the need for humanitarian aid? What unique obstacles do they face in trying to maintain both accuracy and effectiveness in such an environment?
Pantuliano: The biggest challenge is security—for the experts and the people.
This phase of Sudan’s conflict has been extraordinarily violent. Of course, we saw similar violence in the South and Darfur 22 years ago. However, the current level of violence is truly senseless.
One of the most pervasive and horrifying aspects of this war is sexual violence, which has spread everywhere. This alone makes it extremely difficult for experts to operate—local or international.
Quite frankly, there are very few international experts in the areas most affected by the conflict. As I mentioned before, the response has been largely left to Sudanese citizens, who are doing everything they can to document atrocities and provide aid.
But their safety is constantly at risk. Some of the reports of how people have been killed and brutalized are simply unimaginable. It’s terrifying. That’s why so many people have chosen to flee—not because they want to, but because they fear for their lives. For those who have remained behind, it is often not by choice—they simply cannot escape. They are not allowed to flee to safety.
Jacobsen: When delivering aid or advising on the most effective forms of assistance in humanitarian crises and conflict zones, which types of support tend to have the greatest impact? Evacuation is, of course, one form of relief. But what about addressing immediate needs—such as food, clean water, shelter, and medical care? How do you account for the needs of vulnerable groups like pregnant women, survivors of sexual violence, or those with severe injuries at risk of infection? How do humanitarian efforts prioritize and balance these critical needs in such extreme conditions?
Pantuliano: Different situations require different responses, and aid must be designed around what people themselves identify as essential.
In the most acute phase of a crisis, basic survival needs take precedence. In the initial months of any humanitarian emergency, people need shelter, food, water, and medical assistance—the universal necessities.
However, in the vast majority of crises, the acute phase transitions into a protracted crisis after six months. Even in Sudan, we witness how the conflict is shifting geographically, moving from one part of the country to another, depending on which factions are fighting for territorial control. In many areas, armed groups have established their presence, pushing the crisis into a more prolonged and entrenched phase.
At this stage, the type of assistance needed changes. People do not want to remain dependent on aid indefinitely. They want to earn a living, regain dignity, and provide for their families. They also want their children to receive an education.
In every protracted crisis I have worked in, the priorities shift after the first six to nine months. The most urgent needs become jobs, livelihoods, and education.
Unfortunately, the humanitarian sector consistently deprioritizes these areas. When humanitarian funding appeals are made, the categories related to livelihoods and education receive the least resources. There is a major mismatch between what affected communities need and what the international aid system provides.
Jacobsen: In situations where governance is fragmented due to conflict, how do you strengthen local responses to provide even temporary governance structures?
Pantuliano: That’s an interesting question. Today, we just held a workshop on supporting local governance, which is becoming a defining feature in many conflict-affected contexts.
We see this dynamic in places like Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, and Ukraine, where the central government lacks control due to armed conflict, political instability, or loss of sovereignty. Syria is another example.
Of course, local governance does not function the same way everywhere. Some regions develop robust and accountable local structures, while others struggle with legitimacy and stability.
However, one common trend is that citizens frequently organize themselves to provide better services than the central authority ever did. Despite their effectiveness, these local governance structures receive almost no external support. They lack resources, and it is extremely difficult for them to access aid on the scale that a national government would.
Local communities have often implemented small-scale taxation systems to fund basic services, but this remains insufficient. The real problem is that international partners and regional stakeholders often struggle to engage with these informal governance structures.
In the long term, there is no clear vision for how these local structures could evolve into stable institutions or contribute to democratic processes.
We saw this firsthand in Sudan after the 2019 uprising. Resistance committees emerged as key grassroots governance bodies. Still, they were pushed into an uneasy power-sharing arrangement with the military. They resisted this, knowing it would lead to manipulation, but the international community still favoured a centralized, strongman-led approach.
This pattern repeats globally—mediating powers often insist on a single, dominant leader, and, as we have seen, it is almost always a man.
In many of these discussions, it is difficult to engage with the various expressions of local governance and civil society groups because there are too many actors, no unified structure, and no clear hierarchy.
Yet, Western societies have diffused federal structures and decentralized governance models. I don’t understand why we struggle to recognize and work with similar models elsewhere.
This is something worth reflecting on. As I mentioned in today’s workshop, there is an urgent need to develop a conceptual framework for engaging with diffused governance structures because many policymakers find it difficult to work with these systems—even when they function effectively.
Jacobsen: Urgent policy changes are needed to improve international humanitarian and diplomatic efficacy in Sudan. How is ODI contributing to shaping those policies?
Pantuliano: We have been a consistent ally for Sudanese voices. We must support, amplify, and advance what Sudanese citizens demand. It’s about helping them shape the narrative around the crisis. Honestly, you should be interviewing a Sudanese colleague instead of me.
Jacobsen: Please connect us. I would love to interview them.
Pantuliano: Absolutely, I’d be very happy to do that. Some incredible people are leading the response—at the forefront of the crisis. If you listen to my podcast, we have interviewed several Sudanese civil society leaders. I can connect you directly with others who have led the response in Sudan.
That’s what we are trying to do at ODI Global. We act as a bridge between grassroots responders and major donors, leveraging our global influence while ensuring that local actors remain at the center.
We strongly support the work of Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) and Sudanese mutual aid networks. We have also helped build coalitions around mutual aid to ensure the international community does not forget Sudan.
Our role is to continue highlighting this crisis and advocating for greater attention, better coordination, and smarter policies to support those most affected.
Jacobsen: Well, thank you so much for your time. It was a pleasure to meet you.
Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based human rights and national security attorney, brings a global perspective shaped by her expertise in international law, media strategy, and information warfare. As the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, Tsukerman provides sharp analysis of geopolitical affairs while championing human rights advocacy. Her work has spanned critical regions, including the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
In this interview, Tsukerman criticizes the international community’s chronic failure to uphold the laws of war, enforce the Geneva Conventions, or impose meaningful sanctions on human rights offenders. Layers of conflict complexity, rampant disinformation, and inadequate media coverage have all obstructed accountability efforts.
She draws particular attention to the harrowing abuses in Ukraine, marked by mass abductions and forced labor. Tsukerman juxtaposes these atrocities with Russia’s limited internal societal shifts, probing deeper issues like gender parity, demographic pressures, and the psychological state of authoritarian leaders.
The conversation delves into sanctions as a geopolitical tool and a stress test for global alliances, analyzing how BRICS nations navigate around such measures. Tsukerman also highlights the sociopolitical undercurrents—paranoia, regime health, and the erosion of democratic values—that shape the durability of autocratic and democratic systems. Above all, she underscores that long-term stability hinges on a commitment to equality and sustained civic engagement.
(YouTube)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based attorney specializing in national security and human rights. She heads Rising Incorporated, a strategic advisory firm, and has been an active member of the bar since 2010 when she earned her Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law. Her work focuses on foreign affairs, Middle East policy, and international security.
Her insights have appeared in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Kyiv Post, and Trends Research & Advisory. The Jewish Week recognized Irina for her leadership as a “36 Under 36” honoree. She is multilingual and frequently pursues speaking, publishing, and collaboration opportunities.
Today, we’ll explore the situation in Ukraine. From an international law and human rights standpoint, how would you assess the scale of abuses since the start of the full-scale invasion and the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1?
Irina Tsukerman: The situation regarding events unfolding in Ukraine has been extremely bleak, if not catastrophic. Reports estimate that over 90,000 Ukrainian casualties have occurred, although breaking these figures down is complex. These numbers are approximate and have been verified to an extent. Still, there are also unverified figures that could be significantly higher.
One of the most pressing yet underreported issues, beyond the sheer number of those killed or wounded, is the mass abduction of individuals to Russia. While some attention has been given to the forced abduction of children, with several thousand cases documented, reports suggest that over 400,000 individuals, including adults, have been forcibly relocated to Russia. Many are believed to have been sent to Siberia or other remote regions, potentially in work camp-like conditions.
There is also evidence indicating that some of these individuals may have been victims of human trafficking. Additionally, there are unsubstantiated but persistent allegations of illegal organ harvesting and extrajudicial killings. It has been extraordinarily difficult to confirm these claims due to the lack of access and transparency, but what is known is that large-scale forced displacement and ethnic cleansing have taken place.
While there have been limited mediation efforts resulting in the liberation of some abducted children, there has been no comparable progress for the disappeared adults. Their fate remains unknown, with little information available. The Ukrainian government has been preoccupied with immediate and critical needs—primarily military operations and basic humanitarian aid—leaving limited resources for addressing the issue of missing individuals.
Vladimir Putin talking with Artem Zhoga, commander of the Sparta Battalion, a pro-Russian armed group in Ukraine. (Valery Sharifullin)
Jacobsen: Are there reports from individuals who escaped these conditions and shared their experiences? Do we have better insights into where these abducted civilians might have been taken? Are there overlooked stories or regions that independent researchers should investigate?
Tsukerman: Some of the abducted children have returned and provided testimony about their experiences. However, regarding the adults, the lack of focus and resources on this issue means their stories, if any exist, remain largely untold. I haven’t heard of any clear accounts.
Many of them are believed to have been taken to Siberia and may still be there—at least those who survived the journey. That’s why I’m emphasizing this as one of the lesser-discussed stories. Moving people across such vast territories, under heavy guard, and to remote regions of the country makes it incredibly difficult for them to escape. Unless there is a formal exchange, getting back is nearly impossible.
These civilians, not formal prisoners of war, might be exchanged through official mediation channels. The abducted civilians are being treated entirely outside the protections of international law.
There have been well-documented massacres and accounts of torture. Still, the challenge lies in documenting who was involved, how it was carried out, and who is ultimately responsible. The chaotic conditions on the ground make it extremely difficult to gather clear evidence. Any proper investigation of such crimes requires direct access to the crime scene, the perpetrators, and witnesses—none of which has been easily accessible.
This war has created a uniquely fluid and dynamic environment where events unfold rapidly, making it hard to trace exactly what happens in each case. What’s clear is that their soldiers have been indoctrinated. Many of them have been actively encouraged to participate in atrocities, fostering a different mindset compared to the 2014 invasion, which was more of a conventional military takeover.
The level of brutality and butchery we’re seeing now signifies a far greater degree of dehumanization. Over the last decade, this has escalated significantly, creating conditions where such atrocities are far more likely to occur.
Jacobsen: What evidence exists regarding human rights abuses in Ukraine’s territories currently occupied by Russian forces?
Tsukerman: Yes. In the occupied territories, civilians have been increasingly lied to and misled. They were promised that their humanitarian needs would be met. Still, their resources have been systematically confiscated over time, leaving them in dire conditions.
These civilians are essentially stuck in dehumanizing circumstances. They’ve become more like indentured servants than citizens. They are treated worse than the average Russian Federation citizen, who is already subjected to significant rights limitations. People in the occupied territories are treated as second or even third-class individuals.
Their property has been confiscated for war purposes, and their civil and economic rights are increasingly disregarded. As a result, many are facing severe financial losses and economic destitution. They’ve also been exploited for propaganda purposes. Now, with the mounting hardships of war, these individuals are seen as disposable by the occupying forces.
(RIA Novosti)
Jacobsen: I’ve spoken with displaced residents of Kharkiv, and it remains the most remarkable city I’ve visited in Ukraine. I recall telling my colleague, Remus Cernea—a former leader of Romania’s Green Party and now, unexpectedly, a freelance war correspondent for Newsweek Romania—that it would be tragic if Kharkiv or its oblast were to be destroyed. The city’s architecture is uniquely Eastern European, embodying a cultural depth transcending political or historical divides. Losing that heritage would be deeply painful.
Shifting focus, what is the state of internal human rights within Russia under Putin’s administration? How are violations being addressed, particularly concerning soldiers who desert or citizens who openly protest the regime?
Tsukerman: Incidentally, that’s where I was born. Those situations are incredibly dangerous. Deserting soldiers or protesters face immediate and severe consequences. In Russia, during wartime, it’s not uncommon for deserters to be shot on sight. Many Russian soldiers who try to desert often aim to defect instead, knowing that if they are caught fleeing, they can be executed. By defecting to Ukrainian forces, they might secure basic POW protections or even the chance to fight for Ukraine, which is far preferable to being killed.
There are also reports of systematic physical abuse against soldiers who disobey orders or make mistakes. Their superiors have beaten some, and there are even stories of soldiers retaliating by killing their commanders after being forced to commit brutal acts or thrown into hopeless situations. These soldiers have been lied to, manipulated, and sent into battle with little to no equipment. They’re essentially being used as cannon fodder in wave attacks against Ukraine. While these attacks sometimes advance the offensive, they result in massive casualties among poorly equipped and poorly trained troops.
There is a clear and troubling pattern. Many recruits come from ethnic minority regions in the peripheral territories of Russia rather than Moscow or Saint Petersburg. These areas are already subject to systemic discrimination, and the people there are viewed as expendable. There’s a stark imbalance in the number of ethnic minorities being sent to fight compared to ethnic Russians from major urban centers.
In the past, the Russian government tried to compensate the families of soldiers killed in action. Still, these payments have decreased or ceased as the economy deteriorates. Authorities have also been reported to have confiscated money from private bank accounts above certain limits, which leaves people with no incentive to save. Instead, they are forced to hide their money or invest it elsewhere to avoid being seized for war efforts.
Jacobsen: The global response was swift during the first ten days of the full-scale invasion. The United Nations General Assembly’s 11th Emergency Special Session condemned Russia’s aggression with a 141-to-5 vote, calling for troop withdrawal and the return of annexed territory. Since then, how has the international community maintained pressure? Are these continued appeals effective when confronting a nation as prominent as Russia?
Tsukerman: No. They have not been effective, mainly because one of the permanent, veto-carrying members of the UN Security Council is China, which has essentially backed Russia every step of the way. The other veto-holding country is Russia, which, of course, will not vote against its actions.
Both countries have been actively lobbying other nations, particularly those in the Global South, former Soviet bloc states, and former colonies, to secure political support. They’ve also focused on cultivating practical cooperation through mechanisms such as sanctions evasion, trade agreements, and political arrangements.
For instance, many countries have outright disregarded the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. Countries such as Mongolia and Afghanistan, among others, have indicated that they would not comply with such an order. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran have strengthened their bilateral ties, creating financial structures and mechanisms to bypass international sanctions. The BRICS bloc has also been a critical resource for sanctions-busting efforts.
Its primary effectiveness has been facilitating sanctions evasion and providing a platform for technology sharing and transfer within its member states. Beyond that, it hasn’t achieved much on other fronts. However, it has allowed Russia to exploit export-import controls and trade agreement loopholes. Initially, Russia relied heavily on discounted oil sales to countries like India, which helped sustain its economy. However, as caps on Russian oil imports were imposed and pressure from other countries increased, India began shifting its focus to Gulf states for oil supplies.
As a result, Russia’s value as a supplier has diminished. Now, Russia is circumventing energy sanctions by diluting its oil with other types of oil in places like Singapore and Saudi Arabia. When mixed with fuel from other sources, it becomes difficult to trace the origin, enabling Russia to sell the oil under the radar.
Jacobsen: Regarding broader strategy, how impactful have diplomatic and economic pressures on Russia been? Has the UN exerted meaningful influence on the situation?
Tsukerman: The UN’s political pressure has been largely symbolic and ineffective. Russian officials’ high-level visits to other countries have continued unabated. Russia has maintained its ability to negotiate contracts and secure deliveries in developing countries.
For example, Russia is still working on large-scale projects like civil nuclear reactors in Egypt and Turkey. It has also managed to leverage trade hubs in countries like Kyrgyzstan, which serve as intermediaries for trade with the European Union. In essence, Russia has used its diplomatic and economic relationships to turn the situation to its advantage, even under significant international sanctions.
The sanctions, in general, have not been entirely effective. For example, the U.S. never implemented sanctions on aluminum and other metals from Russia. Until recently, the EU didn’t address these areas either, which led to a doubling of Russian metal imports in the second year of the war. So, as you can see, the sanctions regime is full of loopholes. Political commentary becomes meaningless when ongoing political, diplomatic, economic, and social mechanisms allow normal relations to persist.
Jacobsen: Pew Research projects that Russia’s population could shrink by 25 million by mid-century—a demographic crisis with significant geopolitical ramifications. What challenges do economies face when experiencing such a drastic population decline over a single generation? Given Russia’s reliance on oil and gas revenues, how do sanctions and the workarounds utilized by BRICS nations affect the Federation’s long-term stability and adherence to international norms?
Tsukerman: That’s precisely why they’ve been importing Ukrainians—essentially as forced labour to extract energy, metals, and other natural resources. This has provided them with a source of free or near-free labour. Additionally, Russia may need to rely on Chinese workers in the future, particularly in the Far East, where there are historical territorial disputes. This creates a precarious dynamic, as some of that land originally belonged to China.
Russia has a serious demographic problem. However, due to automation in extraction industries and reliance on cheap foreign labour, the Kremlin is far more focused on immediate gains for the elites than on the country’s long-term viability. It prioritizes extracting as much wealth as possible in the short term while consolidating power.
That’s why many of Russia’s elites have moved their wealth abroad or attempted to secure assets elsewhere to the extent possible. This has created controversy around Western sanctions, such as confiscating assets and their subsequent use for Ukraine’s military or loan repayments. While Russia’s long-term economic prospects are grim, the Kremlin is attempting to mitigate this by exploiting foreign labour and resources to maximize short-term gains.
Jacobsen: What are the prospects for peace—or prolonged conflict—if Trump regains the U.S. presidency? How might the growing influence of conservative and libertarian movements in the West shape future diplomatic efforts?
Tsukerman: Trump is likely to push for some “frozen conflict” or a deal that benefits Russia, as his instincts and advisers—like Tucker Carlson—favour such approaches. However, Russia has consistently rejected even favourable peace proposals. This could force Trump’s hand, requiring him to pressure Russia because their refusal to cooperate would make it impossible for him to present a deal as a political victory.
The Russian administration has painted itself into a corner. They have made any reasonable compromise impossible, hastily committing to antagonism. Even if certain agreements would ultimately benefit its geopolitical objectives, it has become trapped by the need to maintain credibility domestically and internationally.
Jacobsen: Have there been any notable shifts in the stance of European populist parties regarding Russia? Are these movements influencing their nations’ foreign policies or support structures?
Tsukerman: Yes, dissatisfaction is growing. Populist parties in Europe that have ties to Russia are losing traction. For example, we’ve seen changes in public opinion in Switzerland and Slovakia. Even Viktor Orbán, a long-time supporter of closer ties with Russia, is losing popularity in Hungary. This signals a broader shift as European populations grow increasingly wary of leaders associated with Russian policies.
AfD in Germany is highly unlikely to gain significant political control, even with efforts like Musk’s to influence the landscape. Nigel Farage, too, has had to moderate his rhetoric on Russia following the invasion in 2022. He’s stepped back from some of his previous positions. Similarly, the Reform Party in the UK is not gaining the votes needed to dominate the political landscape.
In the short term, these parties don’t have a bright future. People are starting to see that they don’t deliver tangible results, and the ultimate beneficiary of their rhetoric appears to be Putin, not the average citizen.
Jacobsen: With Russia losing economic leverage, do populist movements or other actors propose viable long-term visions for their countries?
Tsukerman: There’s very little they can offer. From the average citizen’s perspective, aligning with Russia doesn’t provide economic or political benefits. A pro-Western stance offers far more opportunities.
China might capitalize on this situation and push its agenda. Still, even China is experiencing significant internal financial problems. Its ability to expand influence as it once did is increasingly limited. The more isolated China becomes, the harder it will be to project economic power abroad, mainly because it is losing foreign direct investment.
While domestic investors might inject more capital in the short term, there’s only so much they can do. Suppose Western countries take stronger measures to protect their intellectual property and decouple technologically from China. In that case, the long-term outlook for China will become bleak.
Yes, China has made significant investments in areas like AI, supported by the intellectual groundwork laid in the past. However, if the West becomes more serious about technological independence, China will struggle to maintain its current trajectory.
Jacobsen: Russia and China both face medium- and long-term demographic challenges. However, China’s larger population provides it with more resilience. Declining birth rates, driven by evolving social trends, are a critical concern for both nations. In many cases, women attain higher education and career opportunities than men, leading women and men to forgo parenthood. Meanwhile, autocratic regimes often curtail gender equality, further alienating their populations and exacerbating demographic decline. How do xenophobic policies and gender parity issues affect the longevity of such regimes?
Tsukerman: Xenophobia plays a significant role in both Russia and China, though in different ways. In Russia, there’s a marked ethnic divide, while in China, it manifests in crackdowns on groups like the Uyghurs. These policies deepen societal fractures, making long-term unity under these regimes more difficult.
Gender parity issues further complicate the situation. When people feel disenfranchised—whether due to gender inequality or ethnic discrimination—they become less invested in their communities and the state itself.
It all ties back to a broader nihilistic view of the future. If people have no hope for their futures, they’re unlikely to invest in their communities or feel loyalty to the state, leading to societal decay.
For example, in Russia, there’s a massive AIDS epidemic—not because of a lack of education or access to medical care, but because people don’t care. When basic infrastructure and hope are absent, it’s impossible to foster the kind of societal loyalty or stability needed for long-term autocratic or oligarchic governance.
There’s also a high rate of alcoholism in Russia, driven by this pervasive social nihilism and a complete lack of optimism about the future. It seems like people are, in a way, slowly killing themselves prematurely. Women in Russia, and to some extent in China, remain in highly subservient positions. While there are a few high-profile figures—such as top propagandists or the wives of state officials—paraded around, domestic abuse is rampant.
In addition, there’s a high maternal mortality rate, and child mortality rates remain significant, even though women are being pressured or compelled to reproduce more. The outlook for families in these countries, especially when they lack essential opportunities, is bleak. Yes, in the West, people may choose not to have large families. Still, the rate of societal deterioration is far more severe in countries where the state has no genuine interest in the well-being of its people.
The misogynistic and anti-family attitudes in these regimes make it clear that it’s not about supporting families—it’s about producing new soldiers for the regime or servants for the state. If you’re giving birth to children only to see them drafted into war later, there’s little incentive to want to build a family. So, despite all the propaganda about alleged Western depravity and corruption, the West offers far better conditions for building families than Russia or China.
Jacobsen: Let’s consider a cultural parallel. During my tenure with Humanists International—where I served as Secretary General—I visited Iceland. What struck me was how deeply gender parity was embedded in daily life, even in blue-collar settings. In Reykjavik, for example, social norms in bars were simple: regardless of gender, if you were interested in someone, you’d buy them a drink. There was no pressure for one gender to pay over the other.
In contrast, many working-class communities in North America still adhere to traditional expectations, where men are expected to pay.
Setting aside East-West divisions or the Russia-Ukraine conflict, what lessons can a country like Iceland—hailed by the World Economic Forum as the most gender-equal nation for over a decade—offer regarding the role of gender parity in sustaining governance, whether democratic or authoritarian?
Tsukerman: You’re right to highlight the importance of investing in gender parity for sustainable populations and governance. However, we need to consider Iceland’s context. Its population ranges from 250,000 to 300,000, about the size of a medium city in the United States. Because of its small population, it isn’t easy to make broad extrapolations for larger societies.
That said, Iceland is an interesting case study in social cohesion. Its relatively homogenous culture makes it easier for people to share norms, feel comfortable, and maintain gender-equal practices. Scandinavian and Scandinavian-adjacent cultures tend to be highly conformist, reinforcing these shared values.
However, applying Iceland’s example to much larger or more diverse nations, like Russia or China, becomes significantly more challenging. These countries face deeper structural and cultural barriers to gender equality. While Iceland’s model is valuable as an experiment, its scalability is limited when dealing with nations with millions—or even billions—of people.
Once something becomes the norm in one community, it can affect society, making everyone feel more comfortable. That dynamic might not hold in more heterogeneous societies, where different cultures have varying social expectations.
Interestingly, the war in Ukraine has pushed women to the forefront—not just in their professional or social functions but also in combat roles, on par with men. This is a unique situation. Even in Israel, where women have long participated in the military, the number of women in active combat roles has historically been much smaller.
What we’re seeing in Ukraine is unprecedented. Women are now participating in combat positions in numbers comparable to men, which is not the traditional role for women in war. Historically, women played supporting roles during wars or took over positions vacated by men. But this time, because Ukraine faces an existential threat and doesn’t have enough people, women are on the front lines.
This will likely affect gender dynamics, societal relations, and the country’s rebuilding process. The constant state of “fighting mode” is reshaping traditional roles and fostering a sense of equality, camaraderie, and informality in social interactions—similar to what’s observed in Iceland but driven by entirely different circumstances.
In Russia, women play significant roles as propagandists and local supporters of the war effort. Still, their overall societal roles haven’t shifted due to men being sent to war. The traditional dynamic remains essentially unchanged. Men are still drafted and sent to the front lines, while women continue in their supporting roles.
Jacobsen: Does the age and health of world leaders influence geopolitical decision-making? Zelensky starkly contrasts older leaders like Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and Orbán.
Age, combined with health factors such as obesity, can shape leadership approaches. Many male leaders, particularly in Russia, have shorter life expectancies due to poor health habits, stress, and substance use.
How might these conditions impact their choices or urgency to secure a lasting legacy? Could this explain risk-taking behavior, such as launching wars or pursuing aggressive policies in their twilight years?
Tsukerman: Many of these leaders also have the resources to extend their lifespans well beyond what would normally be expected for someone in their demographic. They have access to the best healthcare, advanced medical treatments, and ways to mitigate some factors that shorten life expectancy.
Even so, the average man in Russia or China in their age group—without their level of wealth—would not live very long under similar conditions of obesity, unhealthy habits, and extreme stress. These realities underscore the psychological and geopolitical calculations that may come into play as leaders approach the later stages of their lives.
Life can be good for a dictator if they manage to avoid being poisoned or killed. Theoretically, they can enjoy their wealth and protect themselves far beyond what’s possible for an average person. Take Putin, for instance: His paranoia about COVID-19 led him to take extreme measures to avoid exposure.
By contrast, leaders like Trump, who also contracted COVID, received treatment and remained active and publicly visible afterward. Similarly, Biden and other officials didn’t wholly isolate themselves. They maintained public appearances and stayed relatively engaged. Putin, on the other hand, was the opposite. He was, and remains, highly paranoid—not just about germs but also about potential assassination attempts, including the possibility of radiation exposure or other threats.
This level of paranoia is typical for authoritarian rulers. On the one hand, it drives them to take extreme precautions to ensure their safety. Still, on the other hand, it’s incredibly stressful. The constant fear of betrayal, illness, or attack undoubtedly takes a toll on their mental and physical health.
Dictators like Putin accumulate immense wealth, wield enormous power, and enjoy extravagant lifestyles, but they are also deeply invested in prolonging their lives. Despite nuclear threats and rhetoric, these leaders don’t want to die. They want to preserve their legacy, enjoy their wealth, and maintain their grip on power for as long as possible.
For example, Putin lives in an opulent palace with thousands of rooms. This isn’t the behaviour of someone who expects or plans to die soon. His actions suggest he is doing everything possible to extend his lifespan and safeguard his position.
Chie Sunada is the Director of Disarmament and Human Rights at Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a global Buddhist organization committed to peace, culture, and education. In this role, she has actively participated in various initiatives promoting nuclear disarmament and human rights.
During the segment on Article 12, the second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, she delivered a statement highlighting the role of education in advancing the treaty’s universalization. Soka Gakkai International (SGI) aligns its commitment to nuclear abolition with sponsoring the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize Forum. Rooted in Josei Toda’s 1957 anti-nuclear declaration, SGI advances peace through education, advocacy, and partnerships, including with the Nobel Institute.
The forum highlighted hibakusha testimonies from Dr. Masao Tomonaga and Keiko Ogura, inspiring action against nuclear threats. Key objectives include No First Use (NFU) dialogues and exploring disarmament pathways. SGI’s resources, such as educational tools and global hibakusha stories, amplify awareness. Collaborative efforts with the Norwegian Nobel Institute promote global engagement in non-proliferation and disarmament initiatives.
Chie Sunada speaking at the United Nations. (Twitter)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Soka Gakkai International’s support for the Nobel Peace Prize Forum align with their long-standing commitment to nuclear abolition?
Chie Sunada: SGI’s peace movement can be traced back to the famous 1957 declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons made by the second president of Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, at a youth gathering. Based on the Buddhist principle of the utmost respect for life’s inherent dignity and humanity’s right to existence, SGI has consistently worked towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. Its activities range from grassroots education and awareness-raising to signature campaigns and advocacy at the United Nations.
For decades, the SGI has recorded and collected the stories of the Hibakusha and participated in debates on and in support of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, especially in the nuclear field. In response to the heightened risk of nuclear weapons use following the Ukraine crisis, the late SGI President Daisaku Ikeda (1928-2023) issued three statements, calling on nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-dependent states to pledge No First use of nuclear weapons.
The Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024 theme was addressing the growing nuclear threat, which aligns closely with SGI’s recent concerns. Therefore, in July 2024, the Nobel Institute invited us to sponsor the forum, and we responded positively.
Coincidentally, the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo). Please allow me to extend our sincere congratulations to the members of Hidankyo. We are honored to have participated in the Nobel Peace Prize Forum, which was held amid growing momentum for nuclear abolition.
The Soka Gakkai is a global, community-based Buddhist organization with over 12 million members worldwide. It promotes peace, culture, and education centered on respect for the dignity of life. As a non-governmental organization, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) has been in consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) since 1983.
Jacobsen: How do including hibakusha testimonies, such as those of Masao Tomonaga and Keiko Ogura, contribute to the goals of the Nobel Peace Prize Forum and Youth Dialogue?
Sunada: Initially, the forum was planned to feature only a panel of experts. However, recognizing the importance of sharing the reality of atomic bomb survivors, the SGI proposed to invite the two speakers from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to join us.
Dr. Masao Tomonaga is a hibakusha (atomic bomb survivor) who, as a hematologist, has been conducting research on leukemia and providing medical care to hibakusha. Ms. Keiko Ogura is the founder of Hiroshima Interpreters for Peace, and she has shared her experiences as a hibakusha with around 2,000 people every year. In 2023, she shared her experiences with world leaders at the G7 Hiroshima Summit. At the beginning of the forum, when both speakers shared their personal experiences of the atomic bombing and called for everyone to take action and work together to achieve a nuclear-free world, the audience responded with thunderous applause.
In his keynote speech, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi shared how meeting a hibakusha almost 40 years ago inspired his current career path. I hope Ms. Ogura and Dr. Tomonaga’s stories at the forum will motivate others to participate and take action for nuclear abolition.
1980s anti-nuclear weapons protest in Oxford, England. (Kim Traynor)
Jacobsen: What are the key objectives of “Avoiding Nuclear War: The Case for No First Use”?
Sunada: Experts on nuclear issues and security from various regions were invited to the high-level panel that followed the forum.
Discuss measures to strengthen cooperation and enhance consultation, coordination, and institutional measures, including the possibility of NFU. Methods of regular consultation, making better information available on NFU for practical and educational purposes.
Discussion of opportunities/ideas for a potential NFU regime, including a presentation of potential unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral pathways.
Exploration of interconnected global challenges and how to strengthen complementarity between NFU and the treaties and agreements, norms, and practices that make up the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
Dialogue on how to strengthen security assurances for states that are perceived to benefit from nuclear deterrence through accelerated ratification/implementation of relevant protocols by nuclear powers and the reservations made to those protocols.
To expedite discussions on nuclear disarmament leading up to the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the atomic bombing. The discussion held at the High-level panel is ongoing.
Jacobsen: How does the Youth Dialogue with hibakusha in Oslo aim to engage younger generations in the abolishment of nuclear weapons?
Sunada: In his Nobel Speech, the leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated, “Their personal stories humanize history, lifting the veil of forgetfulness and drawing us out of our daily routines. They bridge the gap between “those who were there” and we others untouched by the violence of the past. They are living reminders of what is at stake.” The Youth Dialogue with Hibakusha brought together local Oslo junior and senior high school students, University of Oslo students, and members of SGI Norway. For many participants, it was their first hearing directly from a hibakusha.
The hibakusha shared their experiences of the atomic bombing, showing the immense strength it took to survive and continue fighting for a nuclear-free world for 80 years.
It reminded us of the significance of providing opportunities for young people to engage with testimonies of hibakusha, even through video, thereby learning directly about the devastating realities and humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It can be hard to imagine what terrible destruction is caused by a nuclear weapon. However, after listening to the hibakusha, many participants realized they couldn’t ignore the issue.
Jacobsen: How do these testimonies help further a culture of peace?
Sunada: Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN and Founder of the Global Movement for the Culture of Peace, said, “It is essential to remember that the Culture of Peace requires a change of our hearts and mindset. The Culture of Peace can be achieved through simple living, changing your behavior, and changing how you relate to each other. By immersing ourselves in a culture that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will – over time– combine and unite, and peace, security, and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.”
The hibakusha share their stories because of their deep desire that no one else would have to suffer what they went through. And when we receive the gift of their testimonies, we also develop the same determination.
Listening to the testimonies of hibakusha over and over again, many of us have become determined to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. I am one of them. I believe their words have the power to resonate with our longing for peace.
Jacobsen: How does the forum’s topic, “Nukes: How to Counter the Threat,” address current global challenges?
Sunada: In the forum, the moderator Professor Andrew Futter, University of Leicester, gave a very clear and precise analysis of the current challenges we face.
The emergence of rapid technological advancements, particularly in areas like AI, cyber, and advanced conventional weapons, poses significant new challenges to nuclear security beyond traditional nuclear modernization.
A growing divide exists among states regarding the role and value of nuclear weapons. This includes “nuclear traditionalists” who emphasize their importance, those seeking conventional solutions to nuclear challenges, and a rising wave of “activists” pushing for nuclear disarmament.
The rise of multipolarity, with the increasing influence of the Global South and other middle powers, complicates the traditional nuclear security landscape dominated by the US and other major powers.
The decline of existing arms control agreements, such as the INF Treaty, and uncertainty surrounding the future of the New START treaty point to a weakening of the international framework for nuclear security.
Nuclear security challenges cannot be considered in isolation. They must be analyzed in the broader context of increasingly interconnected global threats like climate change and sustainable development.
Jacobsen: What resources does SGI provide to promote the message of nuclear abolition?
Sunada: We have created various tools for disarmament education and awareness-raising, such as exhibitions and hibakusha testimonies in video and book form.
One of the most recent videos is “I Want To Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon,” a documentary film about the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan. The aim of this is to promote global recognition of global hibakusha, those who have been affected by nuclear testing, uranium mines, and the production of nuclear weapons around the world.
Jacobsen: How might the partnership between SGI, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and other cosponsors help broader global collaboration on non-proliferation and disarmament?
Sunada: Having had the opportunity to participate as a sponsor and a co-organizer for the Nobel Peace Prize Forum and other related events, we exchanged views on nuclear weapons issues with experts from the Nobel Institute and other organizations. This provided us with valuable insights for our activities. To achieve nuclear disarmament, we constantly need new perspectives and approaches. In this sense, I believe that working together with various organizations is meaningful.
I understand that the Nobel Peace Prize Forum was attended by and viewed online by people who may not typically follow nuclear weapons issues closely. This provided a unique opportunity to engage and foster their interest in the topic.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee and the Nobel Institute are exploring ways to amplify the impact of the Nobel Peace Prize by supporting the work of the Peace Prize laureates. In this regard, ongoing partnerships with SGI and other groups may be possible.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chie.
Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based attorney specializing in human rights, national security, and international law. As the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, she offers incisive analysis on global affairs and champions human rights. Her expertise spans the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
Tsukerman has been outspoken in her criticism of the international community’s inability to uphold the laws of war, enforce the Geneva Conventions, or impose meaningful sanctions on human rights violators. She argues that the complexities of modern conflicts—exacerbated by disinformation and waning media coverage—undermine accountability. Drawing attention to Ethiopia’s marginalized status on the world stage, Tsukerman has also shed light on the influence of external actors such as Iran, Turkey, China, and Russia. She warns that the war’s ripple effects in the Horn of Africa set a dangerous precedent, emboldening impunity and shaping the trajectory of conflicts like Sudan’s civil war.
(YouTube)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m joined today by Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based attorney specializing in human rights, national security, and the dynamics of information warfare. With a JD from Fordham University School of Law, she serves as president of Scarab Rising, Inc., a boutique security analysis firm. Her expertise spans the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. As the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, she provides sharp insights into global affairs and advocates for human rights and security worldwide.
Our discussion will focus on human rights in Ethiopia, particularly with the Tigray War. To begin, which international legal frameworks could address the Tigray War, and which of these, if any, have failed to be implemented effectively?
Irina Tsukerman: International institutions have not performed particularly well in applying international frameworks. There was some commentary and pressure regarding reported human rights violations, but it is very difficult to apply frameworks without accurate information about each side’s actions in the conflict.
This is particularly challenging when identifying which participant in the conflict—more than two sides—committed specific violations. The general understanding is that all parties were involved in some form of human rights and humanitarian violations, but none of these violations were effectively addressed.
Various laws of war were violated. Anything related to the application of the Geneva Conventions was blatantly ignored, particularly regarding prisoners of war. They were not treated as such. Even though the various parties to the conflict were considered enemy combatants, they were not treated within the framework of the Geneva Conventions. They were not formally recognized as prisoners of war.
Instead, they were treated more like hostages, taken for trade at various points in time in a highly informal manner. There was significant cover-up and disinformation from all sides, particularly from the Ethiopian government, about what was happening.
This made enforcing any formal, structured international legal agreement extremely difficult. What is even more concerning is that there was no serious attempt to impose sanctions or implement foreign policy mechanisms that could have curtailed these massive human rights violations.
External parties outside Ethiopia were also involved, including Eritrea, as well as countries supplying weapons, primarily to the Ethiopian government, or smuggling weapons to other sides of the conflict. None of these parties were held accountable through any international or domestic mechanisms.
Attempts were made at internal peace talks and agreements mediated by elders from various communities. Although an attempt to settle the conflict internally was made, it was a profoundly imperfect solution. Ultimately, the Ethiopian government remained in power despite its responsibility for widespread human rights violations.
No one was brought to justice for these violations, and many individuals disappeared into prisons. There is no clear evidence that any judicial framework was applied domestically to resolve the conflict. Even after the formal conclusion of the war, the situation remains unresolved. There continue to be reports of random massacres, clashes, and other violent incidents.
Protesters decrying lack of action to end Tigray War outside 10 Downing Street in October 2021. (Loredana Sangiuliano)
Jacobsen: How does the principle of the Responsibility to Protect factor into this situation? Has it been seriously considered at any stage of this conflict?
Tsukerman: It certainly was part of the discussions, but the reporting on the issue was subpar to the point of being criminal and negligent. After the first few months of the war, the international media’s reporting dwindled to almost nothing.
There were some reports by international human rights organizations, but there was never a significant campaign to push the international community into action.
Even peacekeeping forces were not seriously considered, in part due to the complexity of the conflict, which spanned the entire country and involved multiple ethnic communities, political entities, and international forces, including those from Eritrea and mercenaries from other countries.
The conflict also implicated other zones and had the potential to spill over into broader issues, including the ongoing trilateral tensions between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over water-related concerns. As a result, there was no significant push to send UN peacekeeping forces or to implement any effective actions, and there was never a major international discussion to address this seriously.
We must also remember that the war began during the pandemic. Part of the international community’s lack of action was its preoccupation with COVID-19. The logistical challenges posed by lockdowns and closed borders made sending any international contingent impractical.
Ethiopian refugees displaced by Tigray War. (Yan Boechat/VOA)
Jacobsen: Could this conflict have broader legal ramifications in the Horn of Africa? For example, could groups with malicious intent toward other ethnic communities use the international community’s failures during the Tigray War as a pretext to act with impunity?
Tsukerman: Absolutely, and it has already happened since then. The number one issue is that Ethiopians of all backgrounds, regardless of ethnic group, felt forgotten—especially in light of other conflicts that broke out later. They believed their conflict was neglected because it occurred in Africa and did not attract significant international interest.
Frankly, there were a lot of racist undertones to these concerns. For example, many believed that racial biases influenced the lack of serious international attention despite the massive casualties and deliberate violations of human rights. These were intentional massacres, not merely exchanges of fire or collateral damage. That perception of neglect and bias remains a significant concern.
Another concern was that Western countries did not have a particularly good political or strategic approach to Africa. Even when they had good intentions, they could not properly apply them. A lack of institutional knowledge regarding African conflicts and political matters complicated the issue.
There was also apathy and the perception that this conflict was not geopolitically important or impactful on broader international considerations. It was seen as less significant than conflicts involving global hegemons, such as Russia, or potential conflicts between China and Taiwan—conflicts involving major powers with global reach. Because Ethiopia is not one of those powers, and the conflict was largely domestic, the international community treated it as less relevant.
This neglect allowed perpetrators of human rights violations to get away with literal murder, remain in power, and maintain antagonistic relations with external powers, which could potentially spark future conflicts. It also set a dangerous precedent for others in the region. This was evident in the Sudanese Civil War, where parties observed how the international community mishandled—or ignored—the Ethiopian conflict. They concluded that resolving their power struggles through violent clashes would not face significant international pushback.
The international community often gained from such conflicts by providing weapons, consulting services, or even mediators without any substantial push to end them or the necessary tools.
Another factor was the involvement of international powers. Western powers took a backseat, while countries like Iran and Turkey became significantly involved. Iran and Turkey, for instance, supplied weapons, including drones, which became a critical military dimension of the conflict. These drones enabled the Ethiopian government to commit further human rights violations. Additionally, China and Russia were active on the ground, and tensions with Egypt over water-related disputes added another layer of complexity.
Some countries even backed particular ethnic groups for their strategic interests, further complicating the process. Border and sectarian issues added another dimension. Tribes from neighbouring countries became involved, pursuing their local interests unrelated to the larger political dynamics of the conflict.
All these factors made the conflict multidimensional, complicated, and challenging to resolve. It was also difficult to communicate the nature of the conflict in simple terms to the rest of the international community, which contributed to its neglect. The complexity and sectarian tensions in various African regions made this conflict an easy model to imitate elsewhere.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today. We should also have another session discussing the broader role of weapons and the tensions with Egypt.
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Let me know when you can do the follow-up, and I’ll make it happen.
Oleksandra Romantsova has been at the forefront of documenting war crimes and championing human rights in Ukraine. As the Executive Director of the Center for Civil Liberties since 2018, she played a pivotal role in the organization’s efforts, culminating in her organization winning the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Ales Bialiatski and the Russian organization Memorial, in 2022. Joining me live from Kyiv, Ukraine, Romantsova brings an unparalleled perspective on human rights in the midst of an ongoing war.
In this conversation, she delves into Ukraine’s role within the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) annual presidency, serving as one of six Ukrainian representatives. With approximately 3.5 million people living in Russian-occupied territories, Romantsova confronts the grim realities of war crimes and displacement, emphasizing the critical need for sustained international support, humanitarian aid, and robust reconstruction efforts.
The discussion also explores broader geopolitical uncertainties, including Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency and the implications such shifts could have for Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty. Romantsova challenges the alarmist narratives often found in Western media, advocating instead for measured, actionable strategies over fear-driven catastrophism.
Romantsova’s reflections shine a light on the resilience of the Ukrainian people, who, even amidst profound suffering, use humor as a defiant act of survival. As she poignantly underscores, ending the war demands more than hope—it requires a united global effort, stringent oversight, and an unwavering commitment to justice and security for the millions affected by this conflict.
(United Nations)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) operates under an annual rotating presidency. Each year, the president must navigate the complex mandate outlined by the Council of Foreign Ministers, which consists of representatives from 57 member states—predominantly foreign ministers. How does Ukraine’s current involvement reflect its priorities and challenges within this framework?
Oleksandra Romantsova: It is crucial to have influential players within the OSCE. I am one of six representatives from Ukraine, and we discuss various critical issues. Together with our partners from Russia and Belarus, we address war crimes and other urgent matters. It is clear that our first question to the council is: “What can be done?”
There are 57 member states, and each can contribute. They mentioned they could initiate and fund programs already underway, such as humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects. Significant financial support has been pledged, and discussions about sustaining assistance will continue next month. We emphasized the importance of communication. If negotiations arise, we must not overlook the reality of occupation—it cannot simply be undone overnight.
If the current frontline remains frozen, it means that approximately 3.5 million people will remain in Russian-occupied territories. While the exact number is unclear due to limited access and documentation, this estimate highlights the scale of the crisis. People in these regions face daily dangers, including torture, killings, and other human rights abuses perpetrated by occupying forces. These atrocities have been ongoing since 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Our primary concern is how the international community can support justice and security for these individuals while ensuring they are treated as citizens deserving of protection and dignity. This issue dominated our discussions. We also discussed the importance of international justice and its geopolitical implications for regions like Central Asia, which face their own challenges. Representatives from these areas and from Russia offered insights into their perspectives.
(Official Website)
Jacobsen: Considering the return of Donald Trump to the White House, there’s significant speculation about how his leadership could shape global dynamics. Trump’s unpredictability has often been described as a double-edged sword: it can introduce flexibility in negotiations but also breeds substantial uncertainty. How do you foresee a possible Trump presidency influencing Ukraine’s efforts toward conflict resolution?
The situation on the ground in Ukraine remains dire. Recent missile strikes by Russian forces have targeted not only military infrastructure but also civilian sites, including hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and residential buildings. These attacks often occur in urban areas devoid of military presence, constituting undeniable violations of international law. In your view, what measures are most urgently needed to stop these crimes and protect civilians from further harm?
Romantsova: I hope we can hold onto the current situation—maintain the existing groundwork—rather than dream about some unrealistic transformation. This is not about envisioning a perfect future but managing the present effectively. Ukraine needs a foreign policy that prioritizes its survival and sovereignty, not shifting focus to internal U.S. issues. This conflict must end, but stopping the war is not straightforward.
The only people who can stop this war are the people themselves. Ultimately, it is up to the collective will. Negotiations and agreements alone are not enough. They require stringent oversight and enforcement to ensure compliance. We have learned from past experiences, such as Russia’s aggression over the past decade, that unchecked actions lead to escalation. Therefore, the international community must remain vigilant and committed to addressing Russian aggression in a structured and consistent manner.
It will not be easy, and it will not happen overnight. For instance, when Trump claimed he could resolve the conflict in 24 hours, Ukrainians found it laughable. Soldiers and civilians alike reacted with humour to such oversimplifications. One day to resolve this? That is far from reality.
Jacobsen: North American media frequently veers toward catastrophism, with narratives that often mirror political leanings. For instance, liberal-leaning outlets may frame opposing developments as apocalyptic, while conservative media often employs similarly extreme rhetoric when figures like Donald Trump gain traction. Both sides fuel a sense of impending collapse, whether predicting the erosion of rights or the loss of sovereignty for Ukraine. How does this polarized media landscape influence international perceptions of Ukraine’s fight for survival?
This tendency toward alarmism was evident during the last U.S. election cycle, where both sides framed the stakes as nothing less than the end of American democracy. If Kamala Harris had won, some claimed it would signify democratic collapse for specific reasons. The same rhetoric was applied to Donald Trump’s potential re-election, albeit for entirely different reasons. How can we encourage more balanced, solutions-driven discourse when discussing global crises like the war in Ukraine?
Romantsova: This rhetoric assumes that the entire world hinges on one moment or election, a flawed perspective. Life continues. The world does not stop. Neither America nor Ukraine will cease to exist. Seven billion people worldwide will still progress, even if the outcomes are not as ideal as imagined.
That said, we must remain grounded in reality. There is no quick fix or simplistic solution. Managing this conflict requires sustained effort, collaboration, and realism, not empty promises or exaggerated fears. Decisions must address real problems with practical solutions rather than perpetuate endless cycles of alarmism.
(Official Website)
Jacobsen: Another challenge is the public’s skewed perception of global crises. Many people in the West don’t realize that half of the world’s population lives in Southeast Asia, which profoundly impacts population density, resources, and geopolitical focus. Perspective matters greatly in shaping global narratives. How can we bring this kind of nuance to discussions about Ukraine’s plight, particularly in the media?
It’s also worth noting the resilience of Ukrainian culture, even amid profound hardship. Humor, as you’ve mentioned, plays a critical role in coping with the trauma of war. Ukrainians often find ways to joke about even the darkest situations—sometimes within hours of a missile strike destroying a friend’s apartment complex. Could you elaborate on how this unique sense of humor serves as a survival mechanism in such devastating circumstances?
Romantsova: Oh, it’s a term that came up after a press conference Putin held. He was trying to justify the invasion, saying something like, “It’s just the beginning of the party,” referring to the invasion of Ukraine. President Zelensky responded with humour and called Putin a “dumbass” during a public statement. It became a viral moment.
Jacobsen: You referenced a particularly striking anecdote: Zelensky calling Putin a “dumbass.” Could you explain the context and significance of that moment? How does this type of rhetoric impact morale, both domestically and internationally?
Romantsova: Yes, it’s an example of the sharp wit Ukrainians use, even in dire situations. The context makes it even more impactful. Shortly after, there was news that a Russian general responsible for the chemical division of the Russian military was reportedly killed in Moscow. Ukrainian intelligence allegedly used a jet-powered scooter to deliver explosives to his car.
Imagine that—a general managing Russia’s chemical warfare operations taken out in such a creative way. In Kyiv, you see these small scooters everywhere, just lying around. The story reflects both ingenuity and the strange reality of the conflict. I don’t think the U.S. media covered it in much detail, but it highlights modern warfare’s dynamic and unpredictable nature.
Jacobsen: Regarding morale, what’s Kyiv’s current sentiment? Despite the relentless violence, how are people finding the strength to persevere, and what role does international support play in sustaining that resilience?
Romantsova: Ukrainians are exhausted but trying to focus on family. We just celebrated Christmas. Christmas traditionally brings people together. In Ukraine, we don’t celebrate Christmas like some other countries do, and we have an extended season of festivities. It’s more concentrated on the 24th and 25th, similar to Spain. Despite everything, people are trying to maintain some sense of normalcy and hope.
Jacobsen: That’s a powerful reminder of resilience. Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Romantsova: This evening feels like my main moment to focus. Many people are trying to integrate their thoughts and keep their minds steady because it’s horrible. Running a business, studying, or managing daily life while dealing with the war is difficult. Every week, life involves some form of support—helping a relative on the frontline, assisting someone teaching in a hospital, or caring for children studying in a basement due to the constant threat of missile strikes.
Your life starts to revolve around the war, and your behaviour adapts. Everything becomes intertwined with survival and the challenges of deadlines, trauma from COVID-19, and now the war. Many people struggle with the pressure to always perform at their best. Still, the reality of war introduces new challenges—like worrying about whether your home or even your road will survive another attack. Mentally, it’s exhausting to try and maintain a sense of normalcy or excellence when the circumstances are so overwhelming.
Negotiations might arise, but no one expects an easy resolution or an ideal outcome for Ukraine. People feel that if negotiations happen, they’ll still need to fight for Ukraine’s interests during and after those discussions. It’s just the reality of our situation.
Matthew Feldman stands as one of the foremost authorities on fascist ideology and the modern far-right in Europe and the United States. A prolific scholar, Feldman has explored the intersections of politics, faith, and extremism in the contemporary world, sharing his insights with students and scholars alike for more than a decade. Currently, a Professor of Contemporary History at Teesside University and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Bergen, Norway, Feldman’s academic pedigree includes fellowships at Oxford, Birmingham, and Northampton, where he led the School of Social Sciences’ Radicalism and New Media Research Group.
In this conversation, Feldman traces the global evolution of far-right movements, delving into how digital technology amplifies their reach, fosters anonymity, and creates enduring networks. He charts the erosion of the historical “antifascist consensus” and examines how societal polarization, identity politics, and fragile masculinity have created fertile ground for extremism—particularly among Generation Z. Rejecting simplistic labels, Feldman critiques the tendency to brand figures like Donald Trump as outright fascists, instead framing their actions within broader trends of conservative authoritarianism that serve as pathways to extremism. Through long-form dialogue, he champions critical reflection and historical literacy as tools to confront the modern challenges posed by authoritarianism and extremism.
(Teesside University)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ve witnessed a significant rise in domestic terrorist activity within the United States, much of which is rooted in white identity and nationalist ideologies—commonly grouped under the banner of “white nationalism.” Why do you think this trend has escalated in recent years, and how is it shaping our current political and social landscape?
Matthew Feldman: It’s a pleasure to talk about these issues, even though they are deeply troubling. No doubt some of the territory we’ll cover will be difficult—addressing racism, violence, and extremism. But it’s important to remember that what we call the far-right, or right-wing extremism, has existed for more than a century. This is not a new phenomenon. However, its context and geography have evolved. Today, we’ll focus primarily on North America.
One crucial point is that the far-right—and, in particular, fascism, which is the revolutionary form of the far-right—has always been very skilled at leveraging technology. In the 1930s, they used radio and the press to spread propaganda. In the 1980s, they were early adopters of bulletin board systems. More recently, they have turned to the Internet and social media, leveraging these platforms to amplify their messaging in ways that provide three key advantages, particularly since the post-war period. First, the anonymity of online posting shields extremists from accountability. Second, far-right content, including terrorist manifestos, often remains online indefinitely, making it notoriously difficult to remove completely. Finally, online spaces enable far-right actors to connect with like-minded individuals locally or globally.
These elements were largely unavailable during the far-right’s ‘dark days’ during the Cold War when a colleague of mine coined the term antifascist consensus. Back then, expressing far-right ideas could result in imprisonment in Eastern Europe. In Western Europe and North America, there was a strong cultural and social taboo against far-right ideologies, making it difficult for them to gain traction. However, we have seen this change dramatically in recent years.
Jacobsen: To what extent do online platforms play a central role in amplifying these ideologies and their visibility?
Feldman: The importance of online spaces in this context cannot be overstated. This is not to say that social media platforms themselves are far-right. Still, they provide the three elements I mentioned: anonymity, permanence, and global reach. These are incredibly significant.
Social media has made far-right messaging much more visible. I’m not convinced that there are necessarily more far-right extremists in the world or the United States today than there were, say, 50 years ago. But they are far more visible and emboldened in some respects. That brings us to the Trump administration, which seems emboldened to promote far-right themes, such as nativism and immigration.
(Anthony Crider)
Jacobsen: If much of this extremist content exists online in a permanent or semi-permanent state, could that fact serve as an unintended advantage? Might it enable us to more effectively catalogue, analyze, and counteract such ideologies, eventually relegating these groups to the periphery—similar to organizations like the Church of Scientology, which remain intimidating and politically active but ultimately limited in broader influence?
Feldman: In other words, could these movements be pushed back to the fringes of society? Yes, but I would push back slightly, Scott, and suggest that the question depends on who we mean by ‘we.’ I’m based in the UK, and some of your viewers or listeners might be based in Europe, where the approach to content moderation differs significantly. In the United States, the trend is moving toward even less protection than Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provided. Even that might be rolled back.
So, ‘we’—if we’re talking about how the online world appears—see it differently depending on geography. For example, how the far-right operates online in Germany differs from that in the United States.
Jacobsen: Does combating these groups require a universal approach, or should tailored tools and strategies be developed to address different ideological or regional contexts?
Feldman: I tend to lean toward the latter, especially in the context of the American First Amendment. In the U.S., there’s a much broader understanding of free speech and a much narrower understanding of what constitutes hate speech or incitement.
But let’s consider the bigger picture. It seems inconceivable to me that, if the world is still around in 50 years, we won’t have some form of a global Supreme Court of the Internet. The Internet does not respect national borders. People can use VPNs to bypass restrictions. Even those who aren’t particularly tech-savvy can recognize that while countries like China might build firewalls around social media, the Internet is not the same as a physical border crossing. The Internet is truly global, and it has changed not just how we date or shop but also how the far-right represents itself and its role in the world. It has fundamentally reshaped their ability to operate and influence others.
Jacobsen: When discussing far-right radicalism or ethnic-based extremism, the focus often lies on its harmful, one-directional impact on society—politically, socially, and culturally. However, could there be a case for viewing this as a two-way dynamic? For instance, does the cosmopolitan and interconnected nature of the Internet have the potential to influence these groups, making them extreme but perhaps less so than they might have been in earlier, more isolated eras?
Feldman: It’s not just a one-way street; that dynamic is unlikely to change. The far-right has adapted its strategies over the past few decades, using a tactic that some scholars have described as ‘front stage’ and ‘backstage.’ The ‘backstage’ refers to the hardcore supporters and their messaging, which is often too extreme for public consumption. On the ‘front stage,’ the messaging is toned down—more cosmopolitan, as you put it—to appeal to broader audiences.
This approach has been around for a long time. For example, if we go back a century to the most radical form of the far-right—fascism—Adolf Hitler demonstrated this strategy. When he gave a speech to the so-called Düsseldorf Club in January 1932, an audience of business people during Germany’s Great Depression, he didn’t mention Jews or antisemitism even once. He tailored his speech to appear as a ‘reasonable’ far-right extremist rather than the genocidal fascist he truly was. He knew his audience and adjusted his rhetoric accordingly.
Jacobsen: Are you noticing a dual strategy among these groups? One that involves outward-facing rhetoric designed for public appeal paired with more covert, strategic operations behind the scenes.
Feldman: I see it all the time. Ten years ago, I published Doublespeak: The Rhetoric of the Far Right Since 1945. There are numerous case studies in that book, but let me share one from a group in the UK called the British National Party (BNP), which had dozens of councillors in 2009. We’re only 15 years on from that, Scott.
At the time, they had two members of the European Parliament. During the European parliamentary elections, the party leadership distributed a ‘Language and Concepts Discipline Guide’ for their members and activists, who numbered in the thousands. Rule number one: “We are not a racist party.” Now, if you need to tell your hardcore activists, “We are not a racist party,” you’re admitting quite a lot there, aren’t you?
They were trying to present themselves as the ‘common-sense’ choice, wrapping their messaging in historic British and patriotic themes while masking their more extreme, radical agenda. This is not new territory. The strategy of appearing reasonable in public while pursuing a more extreme agenda behind the scenes is as old as the far-right itself.
(Anthony Crider)
Jacobsen: As the saying goes, “Hate makes strange bedfellows.” Who are the current unlikely alliances forming in these extremist spaces?
Feldman: That’s a good question. It isn’t easy to pin down. Some of my colleagues have pointed to connections between Islamists and the far-right—limited but real—largely revolving around antisemitism. You also see some strange bedfellows aligned on the issue of anti-Muslim prejudice, which has become a kind of lowest common denominator among various far-right groups. For example, you might find some level of proximity between a far-right group in India, like the RSS, and a far-right group in the United States, both sharing that anti-Muslim sentiment.
So, yes, hate does create strange bedfellows. But by and large—and forgive me if this sounds like a platitude—I believe people tend to know their own. Socialists recognize other socialists. Anarchists know other anarchists. And indeed, fascists and far-right extremists recognize and align with others like themselves.
Jacobsen: How prevalent are these ideologies outside Western Europe and North America? Do we see similar patterns emerging in regions such as Africa, Latin America, East Asia, or South Asia? If so, are they adapted for local political and social contexts, or do they retain their Western origins?
Feldman: The first question I would suggest is methodological: What glasses are we wearing? If we’re wearing the glasses of fascism—which I regard as a revolutionary ideology from the right—then we must acknowledge its Eurocentric origins. Ever since Nazi Germany emerged as the dominant force in fascist ideology, eclipsing Italian fascism by the mid-1930s, fascism has largely been synonymous with white supremacism.
That said, it is not to say there are no non-white fascists, but fascism remains a Eurocentric ideology. However, the far-right is more of an umbrella term. It certainly includes fascism, but it also encompasses other shades of extremism that can be applied to different parts of the world. For example, far-right ideologies emphasize race and nation adapted to other regions.
In Turkey, we have the Grey Wolves. In India, the BJP and particularly the RSS exemplify these tendencies. In Brazil, we saw this with Jair Bolsonaro. These movements may differ in some respects, but they share core elements of far-right ideology adapted to local contexts.
Now, these are not fascist revolutionary regimes, in my view, but they are far-right, and they underscore the global connectivity of far-right movements. This, in itself, is a strange irony. When we think of fascism and the far-right, most people’s first synonym would probably be nationalism. Yet, I’m writing a book on the history of fascism—almost a biography of the ideology, if you will—and one of the more unusual findings is that, from its inception in the 1920s, fascism has always been a globalist creed.
Even when we’re talking about federal attachments or German hegemony, there was a sense of evangelical, missionary work aimed at converting people to this ideology—literally around the world.
Jacobsen: In your view, what is the most pressing institutionalized far-right threat in the United States today? This doesn’t necessarily have to be the largest group, but the one that poses the most serious risk regarding ideology and organization.
Feldman: Regarding the far-right, one could argue that Donald Trump’s administration falls under that umbrella. We could discuss where and how it may or may not be considered far-right, but it is part of the broader landscape.
Within that umbrella, there are numerous fascist revolutionary groups. Most of them are small, typically numbering in the hundreds, but they have significant potential for growth. The title of the book I’m working on is A History of Fascism from 1919 to the Present. The title reflects my belief that fascism has essentially returned to what it was 105 years ago: small, intensely violent, often terroristic, media-savvy, and primed for explosive growth.
We’re also observing a growing gender divide among Generation Z. While I recognize the semi-arbitrary nature of labels like ‘Boomer,’ ‘Gen X,’ ‘Gen Y,’ and so on, these generational categories can help demographers catalogue trends. Within Gen Z, we see a significant political and social divergence by gender. Women in this cohort continue to become more progressive and oriented toward gender parity, likely reflecting broader psychosocial leanings.
However, men in Gen Z appear to be breaking from that several-generation trend, becoming more conservative. Essentially, we’re witnessing a literal fork in the road between men and women within this younger generation.
Jacobsen: Younger men often seem particularly susceptible to far-right propaganda. Do you believe this stems from genuine grievances, or are these issues largely fabricated to manipulate this demographic?
Feldman: No group is inherently insulated from the seductions, lies, and deceptions of far-right extremism. That said, certain groups may have particular vulnerabilities. For example, we’ve been conducting research on mental health and neurodiversity, particularly Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), where it seems there may be specific vulnerabilities. These individuals, already facing stigma, might be more susceptible to certain narratives.
It’s important to note, though, that the vast majority of people with mental health challenges do not turn to political violence. For example, in the UK, we see something like 1 in 20,000,000 people with mental health conditions committing political violence. But when we reverse the perspective, we find that people convicted of far-right terrorist offences in the UK are overrepresented in terms of neurodiversity—something like four times more than the general population. These susceptibilities are worth exploring.
Another significant factor we see in far-right terrorism is a history of prior violent behaviour. This might include domestic abuse, animal abuse, stalking, or harassment. These behaviours often signal susceptibility to being drawn into far-right extremism.
And it may well be that what we want to call a sense of fragile masculinity—or masculinity under threat—can be another one of these susceptibilities. There is no question that the far-right image of masculinity, femininity, and family life is deeply reactionary. One could call it chauvinist or traditionalist—take your pick—but it valorizes sameness.
The far-right has always valorized sameness and opposed what it perceives as difference: people who look different, sound different, or are differently abled. The far-right has always targeted these groups, just as sameness and homogeneity have been its ideals. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
Jacobsen: Are there any books you recommend that are particularly insightful in addressing the generational challenges we’re seeing in this context?
Feldman: There are certainly books that address the growth of the Internet and social media use, which is a critical aspect of this discussion. Let me share a statistic that still makes me sit up and take notice: two out of three human beings on the planet spend an average of 120 minutes a day scrolling social media. To put that another way, 5.07 billion people on this planet spend an eighth of their waking life on social media. That is a fundamentally new phenomenon in human experience.
We’re still trying to understand what this does to us. It may still be too early to tell, but we are, in effect, engaged in a massive social experiment. What does an infinite amount of content—or, to be diplomatic, let’s call it ‘information’—do to our brains? Internet usage varies by region, but the percentages are even higher in places like Canada and the U.S..
However, one thing that seems consistent is that it reduces opportunities for quiet reflection. If you arrive 10 minutes early to meet a friend for a film, you’re far more likely to scroll through your phone than to sit quietly and think about your day or consider spiritual or material matters. These are fundamental changes.
Regarding the politics of the matter, I strongly recommend Kurt Weyland’s The Assault on Democracy. Weyland argues quite compellingly that people who call Donald Trump a fascist are making an error. He suggests that what proliferated during the 1920s and 1930s in Europe was not totalitarian fascism but conservative authoritarianism.
Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
Jacobsen: Could you expand on Weyland’s analysis and relevance to contemporary far-right movements?
Feldman: Certainly, in The Assault on Democracy, Weyland emphasizes that what proliferated during the 1920s and 1930s in Europe—what we might call the interwar crisis—was not fascism as a totalitarian force but conservative authoritarianism. This distinction is crucial because conservative authoritarianism, as Weyland describes it, served as the ‘gateway drug’ to fascism.
In Germany, figures like Franz von Papen and other authoritarians held power in the early 1930s before Hitler’s rise. Similarly, this critique extends to Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Romania—countries that eventually had fascist regimes but were first governed by conservative authoritarian or far-right regimes.
The guiding question is whether history repeats itself—or at least we can learn lessons from it. Assuming there are parallels between our time and the interwar crisis, it’s essential to recognize that conservative authoritarianism was often the precursor to fascism. This isn’t just about Germany; it’s a pattern we see across multiple countries in that era.
And that is a hugely important point. In history, the only instance of fascism seemingly coming out of nowhere is fascist Italy. Unlike most examples, Italy wasn’t ‘softened up’ by conservative authoritarianism before fascism took hold. What we’re seeing now, rather than asking if Trump is a fascist, is whether the conservative authoritarianism of the Trump administration is softening the ground or proliferating conditions that could make fascism possible. That is the core of my critique.
This situation might be uncomfortable now, but it’s important to remember that dying under a far-right regime, such as those under Pinochet or the Greek colonels, isn’t necessarily ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than under a fascist regime. Fascism, however, is revolutionary and sits at the end of far-right politics. What we’re observing is the potential for those who come after Trump to be the revolutionary fascists. That is the historical parallel I’m keen to point out.
Conservative authoritarianism doesn’t necessarily have to include a specific religious ideology or a rigid view of ethnic identity. It can be a political ideology incorporating various elements without requiring a complete a la carte set of beliefs.
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating distinction. Could you explain how Nazi Germany, in particular, complicates or challenges this comparison?
Feldman: Certainly, Nazi Germany complicates this narrative somewhat. For example, in fascist Italy between 1922 and 1938—before the regime introduced Nazi-style race laws targeting Jewish people—it wasn’t necessarily more racist than other societies of the time. If you compare it to France, Britain, Eastern Europe, or even the United States, it wasn’t exceptional in its racism.
Of course, Italy was xenophobic and nationalistic. Still, it wasn’t until the mid-1930s—when Nazism became the dominant model of fascism—that white supremacism and extreme antisemitism became central. Since then, it has been difficult to disentangle fascism from antisemitism or ethnic supremacism, but they are not definitive or exclusive criteria for what constitutes fascism.
Jacobsen: Shifting gears slightly, I’d like to reference an interview I conducted with Eric Kaufmann. Kaufmann made an intriguing point about cultural and group identity. He noted that identities tied to national traditions—like those of the Dutch, French, or English—often incorporate elements such as language, dress, or behaviors that foster a kind of cultural distinctiveness. While these “white identities” can manifest as benign forms of cultural pride in specific contexts, extremist nationalist or religious ideologies are an entirely different phenomenon. Kaufmann argued that engaging with cultural pride in a constructive way could potentially deter individuals from radicalizing, yet this topic often remains taboo. What’s your take on this distinction, and do you see merit in his argument?
Feldman: It’s an important and nuanced point and a sensitive one. This taps into the broader issue of identitarianism—people’s identities based on ability, gender, national origin, faith, and so on. You’re right that there is a historical precedent here. In white-majority countries, such as those in North America and Europe, we know from history that marginalized groups—such as people of colour and Jewish people—have been mistreated.
Acknowledging cultural pride can be positive and help build community. Still, the challenge is to draw the line where pride morphs into exclusion or extremism. That contact point, where healthy pride can prevent radicalization, is worth exploring. It could be a preventative measure, but navigating it without reinforcing harmful ideologies is a delicate balance.
Oftentimes, through things like Jim Crow laws, people of colour were legally segregated and treated as second-class citizens. That history is undeniable. However, we can contrast that history of identitarianism with the vision of one of my heroes, Martin Luther King Jr., who advocated for universalism and a colorblind society.
As we know, particularly on the left, some argue that this ideal doesn’t work in practice because significant gaps and ongoing discrimination persist. Most people, upon reflection, would agree that such inequalities persist. However, if we continue to emphasize individual identity, it becomes challenging to create a universalist outlook. Certain outgroups—whether Jewish people, Asian Americans in North America, or even white people—may reasonably ask, “What about us? What about our identity?”
This brings us back to the legacy of white supremacism that dominated previous centuries. As I see it, the risk here is that if everyone focuses on their identity and prioritizes smaller, cohesive group identities, we may find ourselves picking at the scabs of some ugly past areas.
Jacobsen: Finally, as we wrap up, do you have any reflections or parting thoughts on this conversation or the broader issues we’ve discussed today?
Feldman: I want to end with something that happened a few days ago, as it encapsulates some of our discussion. I’m not going to suggest there’s a definitive answer to this. Still, many of your readers will have their own opinions on the controversy surrounding Elon Musk’s alleged fascist or Nazi salute during the inauguration.
Some, including the ADL, have urged people not to read too much into it. Others, including certain historians of fascism, are convinced it was a deliberate Nazi salute. I think this sort of all-or-nothing, zero-sum thinking is mistaken. It’s not necessarily either one or the other. If anything, Elon Musk seems to be engaging in a tradition of what’s often referred to as online ‘shitposting’ or trolling—using irony or provocation to stir reactions.
Let’s not forget that much of the mass media was labeling Trump and his movement as fascist in the lead-up to the election in November and even afterward. This points to a broader issue: how we interpret such gestures and symbols often depends on our biases and cultural lenses.
And to some extent, Elon Musk may have been responding to that, essentially saying, “Here’s another taboo broken.” Let’s not forget that Musk did visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, so he does have an understanding of the past and the annihilation of entire ethnic groups who were viewed as subhuman under Nazi Germany. However, this act—and the broader combination of Internet culture, social media, politics, and the tendency for everyone to be so certain in their interpretations—is part of the conundrum we face today.
This isn’t just about the Trump administration. It’s about a rising conservative authoritarianism that, if we’re not careful and don’t learn the right lessons from history, could lead us into some very dark places.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time and insight.
Feldman: Credit you, Scott, for persevering through a less-than-happy subject with me today.
Remus Cernea is a Romanian activist, politician, and steadfast advocate for secularism and human rights. Born in 1974 in Bucharest, Cernea has played a significant role in promoting progressive values in a country deeply influenced by tradition and religion. He is the founder of the Solidarity for Freedom of Conscience Association, an organization dedicated to combating church-state collusion and religious discrimination. Over the years, Cernea has championed causes that challenge entrenched norms, making him a polarizing yet vital figure in Romanian politics and activism.
A former president of Romania’s Green Party, Cernea entered the national political stage with a bid for the presidency in 2009, where he garnered 0.62% of the vote. While his presidential run was not a resounding success, it marked the beginning of his career as a reformist voice in Romanian politics. From 2012 to 2016, he served as a member of Parliament, using his platform to introduce bold legislative proposals, including reforms to church financing and the legalization of same-sex civil unions. His initiatives, though often met with fierce opposition, underscored his commitment to human rights and secular governance.
Cernea’s activism extends beyond legislation. He has campaigned vigorously against the presence of religious icons in public schools, arguing for a more secular approach to education. He has also been a vocal proponent of science education, advocating for the inclusion of Darwinian evolution in school curricula. His efforts reflect a broader mission to modernize and secularize Romanian society, often putting him at odds with powerful religious and political institutions.
Recently, Cernea shared harrowing insights from his work as a war correspondent in Ukraine. In Kharkiv, he witnessed the devastation wrought by the conflict, describing towns like Kupyansk, where the majority of buildings have been reduced to rubble. He highlighted the growing threat posed by FPV drones, which have increasingly targeted civilians and military assets alike, heightening risks even far from the front lines. Cernea painted a grim picture of the evolving arms race between Russia and Ukraine, noting how new weaponry and tactics continue to escalate the brutality of the war. During his time in Kyiv, he documented drone strikes, capturing footage that underscores the importance of bearing witness to these atrocities.
Cernea’s work—whether in activism, politics, or journalism—reflects an unwavering commitment to challenging extremism and advocating for a more just and rational world. His journey is a testament to the power of persistence and the necessity of dissent in the face of entrenched power structures.
Remus Cernea reporting from Ukraine. (Facebook)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, I’m speaking with Remus Cernea, a former Romanian MP, past president of the Green Party in Romania, and a founding figure in the Humanist Movement in the country, among numerous other roles. Your work has often focused on resisting the intrusion of religious institutions into public life, including opposition to projects like the proposed cathedral. You’ve recently turned your attention to war correspondence, working with Newsweek Romania. Currently, you’re in Kharkiv. Could you tell us how many trips you have made to this region and what motivated your return to Kharkiv on this occasion?
Remus Cernea: I’ve spent nearly 300 days in war zones over the past three years, mainly in Ukraine, although I also spent two weeks covering the conflict between Israel and Hamas. I am in Kharkiv now because I can easily travel to the front lines from here. The front lines are close: the Vovchansk front lines are approximately 30 kilometers away, and the Kupyansk front lines are about 100 kilometers from Kharkiv. Here in Kharkiv, there are frequent events and disruptions.
Unfortunately, there are daily air-raid alarms—often 10, 12, or even 15 a day—and many explosions. Of course, the intensity and drama are far greater near the front lines, particularly in Kupyansk.
I usually come to Ukraine for two, three, or four weeks at a time. This is my sixth trip to Ukraine in the past year. I’ve also been to Kyiv for a while before coming to Kharkiv. Afterward, I’ll return to Kyiv and visit other cities to film and record stories about this tragic war.
Jacobsen: What are your observations about morale in Ukraine’s eastern regions? Recently, I attended a conference in Toronto, Canada, focused on rebuilding Ukraine, and I also participated in a separate event where attendees shared firsthand accounts, including from those directly affected by the war. Among the participants in Canada, morale appeared strikingly high. However, given the complexities of the global political landscape, how would you assess morale within Ukraine, particularly in an oblast so close to the Russian border?
Cernea: Morale is high. Earlier today, I spoke with soldiers from the 57th Brigade, which has been defending Kharkiv for a significant period. I had previously met with the brigade’s artillery troops. Today, I met with members of the mechanized infantry and even went inside one of their infantry vehicles. The morale among these soldiers is steadfast. They are determined to defeat the Russians and are steadily achieving this goal.
Every day, there are dozens of Russian attacks, but nearly all of them—almost 100%—are repelled, often with heavy losses inflicted on the Russian side. While Ukrainian forces also suffer casualties, they continue to prevail in the Kharkiv region. Ukrainian forces consistently win numerous battles and skirmishes daily.
Although these engagements are not large-scale battles, they are fierce. The Russians persist in attempting advances, but Ukrainian defenders repel them remarkably. Occasionally, the Russians gain some territory, but it is minimal. Each square kilometer they capture comes at a tremendous cost. For every kilometer gained, the Russians lost a significant number of soldiers, tanks, and other military equipment.
The Ukrainians are highly skilled, resourceful, and determined to resist. They successfully repel attack after attack, demonstrating extraordinary resilience and strength in the face of this ongoing aggression.
Volodymyr Zelensky/Facebook
Jacobsen: You also visited Kupyansk, where you reported that 80% to 90% of the buildings had been destroyed. Can you share what you witnessed and the implications of such widespread devastation?
Cernea: Yes, I was there on Friday, three days ago, with a mission to evacuate people. Despite the devastation, individuals still live in these ruins and destroyed buildings. We evacuated two families, along with their cats. Almost all of the buildings on their streets were already destroyed. Somehow, their homes had not yet been destroyed. Still, the houses nearby had been obliterated by shelling, artillery, missiles, and drones.
The drones, in particular, are extremely dangerous now. Let me show you this part. This fragment of a drone hit about 30 meters away from me on Thursday, January 16, 2025. First, we heard the sound of the drone, and then we heard Ukrainian soldiers firing at it. The drone was hit, fell, and exploded about 30 meters from where we were standing. I was with three other Ukrainian journalists at the time.
The primary danger near the front lines now comes from drones. I will explain why drones are the most dangerous threat on the battlefield. Unlike artillery or missiles, drones can actively pursue individuals targeting specific areas. With artillery, for instance, there is a target, and if you happen to be near it, there is a chance you might be wounded or killed. However, you often have seconds to move or run before the shell hits.
Drones, especially FPV (first-person view) equipped with cameras, are operated by Russian soldiers who can see and actively follow their targets. Even if you try to leave, move away, or run—whether on foot or in a vehicle—the drone can follow you and is likely to harm, wound, or kill you. That is why drones are now the greatest threat near the front lines.
Typically, drones range from 5 to 10 kilometers, sometimes up to 20 kilometers. Anything within that range can be targeted, making it extremely difficult to escape.
In the last few months, or perhaps the last year, Ukrainians have developed anti-drone devices that attempt to scramble the signal to prevent drones from reaching their targets. While these devices are helpful, they are not 100% effective. Sometimes, they work, and other times, they do not.
Meanwhile, the Russians are targeting many civilians. For example, in Kherson, they conduct what can only be described as “human safari.” They deploy FPV drones and intentionally target people they see on the streets, killing them.
(Facebook)
Jacobsen: Why do you think they are doing this?
Cernea: The answer is clear—they have no morals. This is beyond question. They are targeting civilians deliberately, with no regard for human life.
Jacobsen: You’ve spoken about the use of drones targeting civilians. Could you delve deeper into the strategic logic or motivations behind this approach? What does it reveal about the broader dynamics of the conflict?
Cernea: Yes, there’s a profoundly cynical rationale behind it. Imagine a drone operator. His primary task is to locate and target military assets. However, there are times when he cannot find any military targets. In such cases, if the operator sees movement—a citizen walking on the street, an ordinary person, a car, or even rescue teams evacuating people—he will often choose to strike. The drone would be considered a wasted resource if he didn’t strike.
Even after hitting civilians, they report to their superiors that they’ve “eliminated Nazis.” Russian propaganda consistently labels Ukrainians as Nazis, so there’s an incentive for drone operators to justify their actions. This leads to what can only be described as a “human safari,” where civilians in cities near the front lines, such as Kherson and Kupyansk, are deliberately targeted by FPV drones. These drones, with 5 to 20 kilometers ranges, create constant danger in their operational zones.
Jacobsen: According to recent reports, such as those from the Kyiv Independent, casualties have risen significantly. What insights can you offer regarding this trend, and what does it suggest about the current state of the conflict?
Cernea: Yes, the number of casualties has increased significantly. During our first trip to Ukraine in November and December 2023, the death toll per day was likely around 850 to 950. By our second trip in August and September 2024, the numbers had risen to approximately 1,000 per day. Now, in early 2025, the numbers range between 1,500 and 2,000 deaths per day on the Russian side alone, and that doesn’t include Ukrainian losses.
This escalation reflects the growing volatility of the war. The Russians are becoming increasingly desperate and ferocious. Their tactics have intensified, and their use of weaponry has evolved. For example, they are now bombing Ukrainian cities more frequently and targeting residential areas with ballistic missiles and glide bombs.
Jacobsen: From your perspective, how has the ongoing escalation of violence impacted the lives and infrastructure of Ukrainian cities? Are there specific patterns or stories that have mainly stood out to you?
Cernea: The destruction is immense. In Kharkiv, for instance, I’ve seen entire residential blocks obliterated by glide bombs. One block of flats, with 10 floors, was destroyed. The Russians are deliberately targeting civilians and residential areas more aggressively than before.
On New Year’s Eve and January 1, I was in Kyiv. For the first time, the Russians launched four drones that directly struck the city center, an unprecedented event. Two of these drones hit within 100 meters of the presidential administration building. I was there and captured footage of the aftermath.
Jacobsen: What kind of reactions have you received for your documentation?
Cernea: Other journalists were astonished by the footage I managed to capture. They asked how I recorded these explosions, and I explained that this is what I do. Whenever I hear an air raid alarm, I set up my camera near a window and start recording. On January 1, I listened to the drones, placed my camera by the window, and captured dramatic footage of four drones striking the center of Kyiv. This kind of work is critical for documenting the brutal reality of this war.
Jacobsen: You’ve referenced the drone attacks on Kyiv that occurred on January 1, suggesting that they were intended as a symbolic message from Russia. Could you elaborate on that interpretation and the broader implications of such acts of aggression?
Cernea: It was a clear message from Russia to President Zelensky and Ukraine, signaling that Russia intends to remain ferocious in its attacks. From what I understood, those four drones contained some Chinese components. These components allowed the drones to bypass Kyiv’s air defense entirely—no defense was in place.
Imagine that: no defense. I was shocked but deeply concerned, wondering where the air defense was. It’s one thing for a single drone to evade detection, but four drones striking the center of Kyiv is alarming. A few days later, an official statement confirmed that these drones were a new variant based on the Shahed-136 model. Adding new Chinese components made them capable of evading existing air defense systems.
Jacobsen: It sounds like an arms race is unfolding.
Cernea: It’s a new arms race. Both sides are constantly trying to outpace each other. One side develops new weapons to strike harder, and the other scrambles to create defenses while working on its advanced weaponry. It’s a cycle of escalation, and it’s relentless.
Even now, I’ve paused because I heard noises that might be drones. You’re always on edge in an area like this, listening for potential threats. If drones appear, I’ll film them.
Jacobsen: Stay safe, Remus. Don’t take any unnecessary risks.
Cernea: Thank you. But as you know, there’s always a risk. You experienced this yourself during your time in Ukraine. You never know where the next missile or drone will strike. If you’re near the front lines, the risk is even higher.
Now, with these FPV drones, it’s a nightmare. When a missile or a shell hits you, it feels like traditional warfare. But these drones can follow you, making them much more dangerous and unpredictable. It’s an entirely new level of threat.
Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) is a distinguished scholar and thought leader whose work explores the intersection of politics, culture, and identity. He is currently a Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and directs the Centre for Heterodox Social Science.
Kaufmann graduated from the University of Western Ontario and earned his Master’s and PhD at the London School of Economics. His academic journey includes positions as a Lecturer at the University of Southampton and Birkbeck, University of London. From 2008 to 2009, he was a stipendiary Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Kaufmann is the author of numerous books, including Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, and Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? His forthcoming book is Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution. He has also authored opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, Newsweek, National Review, New Statesman, Financial Times, and UnHerd.
Beyond academia, Kaufmann is affiliated with esteemed think tanks and institutions, including the Manhattan Institute, Policy Exchange, the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the University of Austin. His research delves deeply into pressing issues such as immigration, ethnic change, and national identity, illuminating the cultural and psychological drivers behind populist movements. He offers nuanced perspectives on white identity, nationalism, and supremacy, advocating for open and balanced dialogue to mitigate polarization.
In his reflections, Kaufmann has tackled a broad spectrum of topics—from the challenges of modern journalism to the resilience of Ukraine and the pressures facing liberal democracy in an era of suppressed debates. His work underscores the importance of fostering resilient, inclusive discussions as society grapples with complex and often contentious issues.
(Twitter)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired you to write Whiteshift in 2018? What are the fundamental value conflicts in these conversations on majority-minority dynamics? Considering the taboos you address, where should such discussions begin?
Eric Kaufmann: The first thing to note is that I’ve studied the intersection of immigration, ethnic change, and national identity since my Master’s degree in 1994. My PhD at the London School of Economics, my first book, examined immigration and ethnic change in the U.S. during its transformation from a predominantly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) country to a majority-white nation that included Catholics and Jews. That’s where it stands today. I was particularly interested in the decline of the WASP phenomenon. My work then covered developments up to around 2004, when Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? and Pat Buchanan gained attention for his political campaigns.
At the time, the big question was: How is it possible that there hasn’t been an anti-immigrant nationalist-populist movement in the U.S.? This topic was of considerable interest in the mid-2000s. It wasn’t until Donald Trump’s campaign that such a movement emerged.
When it happened, many people following these developments said, “There it is.” However, I had already studied and written about these topics for years. Then, of course, the populist moment arrived. In 2014, during the European Parliament elections, we saw the beginning of this shift.
That election marked the emergence of three parties gaining close to 30% of the vote: the Danish People’s Party, the National Front in France, and the UK Independence Party. What started happening around 2014 was an increase in asylum seekers and immigration in Europe, peaking during the migrant crisis in late 2015. This crisis led to the rise of significant populist parties in unexpected places like Sweden and Germany. Later, we saw figures like Matteo Salvini in Italy and the rise of Vox in Spain, along with other movements in Europe. While Italy already had the Northern League, many of these movements were entirely new phenomena.
Meanwhile, Trump emerged as the only one among 17 primary Republican candidates willing to make immigration his signature issue—not just focusing on the border but making immigration central to his platform. That was particularly taboo, even within the Republican Party. Trump’s rhetoric, including inflammatory comments about rapists crossing the border, broke with convention. Brexit followed shortly afterward, and then Trump’s eventual election victory.
This past decade has been pivotal. Since then, we’ve seen the influence of events like COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, which have added new layers to populist and nationalist movements worldwide.
Those events led to a dip because attention shifted from migration to health and the economy. However, migration and related topics are now back and stronger than they have probably ever been. We’ve essentially had a decade of populist movements.
What’s particularly interesting is that economic factors do not easily explain this phenomenon. While there are tens of thousands of academic papers and many books on the subject, my argument has always been that this is fundamentally psychological and cultural, not economic. If we want to explain these dynamics, pointing to financial crises or deindustrialization is inaccurate. These explanations fail to capture the sociological and psychological contrasts between how people perceive white identity versus white nationalism.
Jacobsen: Could you delve into the distinction between white identity and white nationalism? How are they similar, and where do they diverge?
Kaufmann: Absolutely. Let’s clarify the terms because they’re often conflated. Nationalism, broadly speaking, refers to territoriality. For example, the southern U.S. under slavery was not white nationalist because it deliberately maintained a multicultural society, albeit one based on inequality and exploitation. Plantation owners had no desire for the Black population to leave because their economic system depended on enslaved labour.
In contrast, the vision of the northern U.S. during that era leaned toward what could be described as white nationalism. Many in the North supported the idea of “free soil.” Essentially, they argued that enslaved people should be emancipated and then repatriated to Africa. They argued that society could not function without slavery. Still, their vision often involved racial homogeneity rather than coexistence.
This distinction is important: white nationalism is about securing a white ethnostate characterized by homogeneity, whereas white supremacy typically operates within a multicultural society marked by systemic inequality. Multicultural inequality and white nationalism are fundamentally different societal structures.
Donald Trump supporter in South Carolina.
Jacobsen: How do these distinctions manifest in public discourse across the political spectrum? Are there consistent patterns in how they are debated or misunderstood?
Kaufmann: There’s a tendency, especially in public and political discussions, to lump white identity, white supremacy, and white nationalism together. Each of these concepts is distinct, yet they’re often conflated.
On the cultural left, for instance, there’s a valid critique that pursuing an ethnostate—a racially pure society—is inherently racist. History shows us that such pursuits lead to horrific consequences like ethnic cleansing. That’s a fair and important point.
However, the problem arises when all expressions of white identity are lumped in with white nationalism or white supremacy. White supremacy, for example, is largely a feature of a multiethnic society, where one group dominates others within a system of inequality. This is distinct from white nationalism, which seeks to establish a homogenous ethnostate.
Meanwhile, white identity, at its core, is no different from other racial identities, such as Black identity or Hispanic identity. People identifying with their racial or cultural group isn’t inherently problematic. Yet, it often gets conflated with extremist ideologies, which leads to unnecessary polarization.
Jacobsen: Where do you identify valid points and common misconceptions in these discussions? What nuances often get overlooked?
Kaufmann: A valid point from the cultural left is the recognition that racial purity as a goal is unacceptable and has historically led to atrocities. That’s an important critique. However, on the cultural right, there’s also a valid observation that recognizing white identity doesn’t inherently equate to supporting white nationalism or white supremacy. This distinction often gets lost in broader public discourse, resulting in oversimplification and, in some cases, unjust labeling of individuals or groups.
When you examine the survey data, Ashley Jardina’s book White Identity Politics highlights this dynamic. She found that 45% to 65% of white Americans consider their white identity to be meaningful to some degree. Evidence of this can also be seen in patterns of behaviour, such as whom people choose to marry and where they choose to live. There is clear sorting that takes place. For example, areas that were predominantly white in 2011, where whites make up a significant majority of the population, tend to experience a net increase in their white population. Places like Boise, Idaho, and Portland, Oregon, are examples.
By contrast, areas where whites are a minority—such as Greater Los Angeles or San Francisco—tend to see a net decrease in their white population over time. These patterns hold at a large scale and at the neighbourhood level. The same dynamics are observable in other countries, such as Sweden, Britain, and Canada.
Intermarriage data reflects similar patterns. Take Canada, for instance, which does not share the same historical context as the U.S. In cities like Toronto or Vancouver, where roughly half the population is white—perhaps slightly less now—the rate of marriages crossing racial lines is around 8% to 10%. While this is significant, it’s far below the 50% rate that would occur if people were paired randomly. This suggests that de facto white identity persists, though it’s not inherently abnormal or something to be condemned outright.
Jacobsen: What drives the significance of white identity for some individuals? Is it rooted in cultural, historical, or psychological factors?
Kaufmann: The strongest predictor of the importance of white identity to someone is their attachment to ancestry. For example, suppose someone feels strongly connected to their Italian or Irish heritage. In that case, they are more likely to feel attached to being white than someone who doesn’t feel a strong connection to their ancestry. It’s like an outer layer of identity, similar to how attachment to being Mexican often correlates with attachment to being Hispanic.
Importantly, attachment to white identity is not necessarily associated with hostility toward other groups. Jardina’s book and the psychology literature emphasize that attachment and hatred are separate dispositions. They only overlap in contexts of zero-sum conflict, whether violent or political.
For instance, the American National Election Study shows a clear zero-sum relationship between partisanship: the warmer Republicans feel toward their party, the colder they tend to think toward Democrats. However, regarding racial identity, the data tells a different story. White Americans who feel warmth toward whites on a 0–100 scale are, if anything, slightly warmer toward Black and Hispanic people than whites who feel colder toward their racial group. This isn’t the same zero-sum relationship that we see with political partisanship.
Jacobsen: Why do discussions about white identity so often devolve into toxicity? What structural or cultural forces contribute to this?
Kaufmann: Part of the issue is the conflation of white identity with white nationalism and white supremacy. While there’s some overlap, these are distinct concepts. White identity reflects a sense of connection to one’s racial group, which is no different from the identity seen among Asians or Hispanics. White nationalism, by contrast, seeks to create an ethnostate, and white supremacy involves systemic domination within a multicultural society. These distinctions often get lost, leading to misunderstandings.
It’s also worth noting that not everyone has a strong white identity. Just as not everyone feels deeply connected to their extended family, not all white people find their racial identity meaningful. However, it’s not necessarily unhealthy or harmful for those who do.
Jacobsen: The tension between individual and group identity seems pivotal here. People experience varying levels of warmth or detachment toward their own group or others, and these feelings often depend on context and personality. While many discussions focus on group dynamics, individual experiences frequently deviate from collective narratives. In diverse, liberal societies, how do individuals typically reconcile the tensions between personal and collective identities?
Kaufmann: That’s a fascinating question. There’s a strong narrative around colour blindness, for example, but it has different interpretations. On the one hand, colour blindness can mean treating people equally, regardless of their skin colour, which aligns with the classical liberal ideal of equal treatment. On the other hand, if colour blindness means ignoring or discouraging identification with a racial or ethnic group, it becomes problematic. Some people will feel strongly connected to their group identity, while others won’t, and neither should be stigmatized.
Of course, any of these ideas that are taken to an extreme can become harmful. When discussing individual identity, we need to clarify what we mean. Does it refer to personal achievements, character traits, or something else? One challenge with focusing solely on achievements is that not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. There needs to be space for individuals who don’t have conventional achievements, such as career success, educational attainment, or high income.
People with fewer “achieved” identities often gravitate toward “ascribed” identities—such as ethnicity, religion, or nationality. This is a well-documented phenomenon in social identity theory and is entirely legitimate. Not everyone can be defined by achievements, and that’s okay.
Jacobsen: How does this dialogue intersect with broader philosophical perspectives on identity? Do you see a link to existential or ethical considerations?
Kaufmann: There’s an interesting debate in political philosophy about what constitutes true individuality. Some argue that to truly be yourself, you need to strip away the attachments imposed on you at birth, such as ethnicity, religion, or cultural traditions, and find your authentic self through introspection. This is similar to certain Buddhist or Cartesian ideals of enlightenment.
In contrast, thinkers like Charles Taylor emphasize the importance of community. He argues that groups—whether chosen or inherited—play a crucial role in shaping who we are. Engaging with intergenerational communities, such as those based on religion, nationality, or ethnicity, can enrich our sense of identity. Taylor’s communitarian perspective suggests that breaking entirely from these connections can lead to a poorer existence, while engaging with them adds depth and meaning to our lives.
Of course, there’s a balance to be struck. Being completely subsumed by group identity can stifle individuality, but engaging with chosen or inherited communities can enhance it. Communitarians would argue that group affiliations contribute to, rather than detract from, individuality.
Jacobsen: This theme aligns closely with humanist principles, as outlined in the Amsterdam Declarations of 1972, 2002, and 2022. These declarations emphasize respect for the individual’s right to self-determination while acknowledging the necessity of social responsibility. How does this perspective inform your thinking?
Kaufmann: Individual and collective identity interact; we can’t escape that dynamic. Humans naturally seek rooted, multi-generational identities through religion, nationality, or other affiliations. Denying this aspect of human nature doesn’t align with the way many people experience life.
Jacobsen: Humanist philosophy celebrates the balance between individual autonomy and communal connection, suggesting that both are vital for a meaningful existence. How do you see this duality influencing contemporary identity debates?
Kaufmann: We must recognize that there are trade-offs. Striking the right balance between individuality and collective identity involves costs, and different people and societies navigate this balance differently.
The more you move toward collective identity, the more there may be costs in terms of individuality, and people will navigate that balance differently. I think one key issue is that while it’s respected for minority groups to have collective identities and attachments, there has been a tendency to stigmatize majority group attachments. I wouldn’t call it outright censorship, but expressing a majority attachment is more politically incorrect. That creates a problem because there’s social pressure against majority identities. This pressure either drives those identities underground or stokes resentment among individuals who strongly connect to their majority identity.
This is not a significant issue for people with a low level of attachment to their group identity. But for those with a strong sense of group identity, this can lead to frustration. This is not primarily about metropolitan versus rural divides, as David Goodhart explores in his book The Road to Somewhere. Nor is it simply about wealth or class divides.
When you look at the data, these external factors, such as wealth or whether someone lives in a rural or urban area, only explain a small proportion of whether they identify with their ethnic group or align with progressive politics. For example, white working-class individuals living in London were just as likely to vote for Brexit as their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. The perception that London is a pro-European Union oasis is more about its demographic composition—being younger, highly educated, and more ethnically diverse—than the city itself. When you compare similar groups, the differences diminish significantly.
There’s also been an overemphasis on the sociological context of these issues. The core drivers are psychological and individual. Research suggests that dispositions toward identity are one-third to one-half heritable. This means that sociological factors, while important, are often exaggerated in discussions about group identity and political behaviour. Yes, education and the rural-urban divide correlate with populist voting. Still, the differences are not as stark as some narratives suggest. For example, London might see nearly 40% voting to leave the EU, while rural Northern Britain might approach 60%. This is a difference, but it’s not the absolute divide of 0% versus 100% that some might imagine.
Jacobsen: Do you believe conversations about ethnicity, white identity, and minority identity risk fueling racialist politics? How can we address the toxicity of political culture, particularly when social media amplifies these issues?
Kaufmann: Those are critical questions. First, discussing these identities does carry a risk of playing into racialist politics. However, the real question is whether allowing people to discuss these topics openly is more likely to lead to such politics than trying to suppress the conversation. Suppression can often backfire, driving these sentiments underground and creating a sense of grievance among those who feel their perspectives are being silenced.
Second, addressing the toxic elements of political culture requires consistency. If we are to accept group identity politics for some, it should apply equally to everyone. People who feel the need to attach themselves to their group identity—whether a minority or majority group—should be able to do so without fear of stigmatization.
The question ultimately becomes one of balance: Does creating space for these discussions reduce polarization and resentment, or does it risk exacerbating racialist tendencies? It’s better to create a space where people can discuss identity openly and thoughtfully rather than attempting to shut down the conversation entirely. These issues are complex and subtle, requiring nuanced approaches, particularly in an era where social media often amplifies divisive rhetoric.
I don’t think the people who immediately reach for suppression—whether normative or legal—have the evidence to justify an anti-speech position. For example, I’m not convinced that restricting speech is effective. Allowing freer expression and open debate within mainstream institutions could remove much of the toxicity.
Consider, for instance, the fact that in Germany, it is illegal to question whether the Holocaust happened. In contrast, in the U.S., it is not. Is antisemitism significantly worse in the U.S. than in Germany? I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that claim. Many European countries have similar speech restrictions, but if anything, these measures may promote radicalism.
For example, research by Jacob Aasland Ravndal suggests that when populist right-wing parties perform well electorally, street-level attacks on minorities decrease. For a long time, there was no populist right in Germany. Yet the country routinely experienced attacks on asylum hostels, including attempts to burn them down. This raises the question of whether these movements act as a safety valve. Expression, rather than suppression, may mitigate these issues.
Take Sweden as an example. If mainstream parties had been willing to converse about immigration levels—saying to voters, “Do you want less or more immigration? Here’s why we think more (or less) is a good idea”—there would likely have been no electoral space for the Sweden Democrats. However, because the mainstream parties avoided the topic, the Sweden Democrats became the only ones willing to discuss it, allowing them to rise in prominence. This pattern has played out across Europe, with populist parties emerging as significant players in their political systems.
Jacobsen: Do you think the suppression of open debate on identity-related topics has contributed to the rise of polarizing figures like Donald Trump?
Kaufmann: Absolutely. Suppose other Republican candidates had been willing to address border and immigration issues openly and respectfully. In that case, Trump might not have gained the traction he did. However, because they avoided these topics, Trump—unrestrained by norms—filled the vacuum. This lack of restraint meant he could make inflammatory statements, such as insinuating that Mexicans are rapists, which took the conversation in a toxic direction.
When populists emerge, they often act as loose cannons, disregarding established norms and escalating tensions. Addressing these issues early and within a normative framework could prevent such figures from dominating the discourse.
Jacobsen: What question do you feel is missing from these conversations? What remains an unresolved issue in the discourse?
Kaufmann: The underlying cause of populism’s rise is the West’s ethnic diversification. Immigration serves as the lightning rod for these parties, but the deeper driver is cultural and psychological rather than economic. The widely accepted narrative attributes concerns about immigration to pressures on public services and jobs, but that’s not the primary factor.
The actual driver is that some people feel discomfort with rapid ethnic change. They see the familiar slipping away, perceive differences as disorderly, and perceive changes as a form of loss. If we cannot have open conversations about these underlying drivers, we will continue to miss the root causes and allow these tensions to fester.
That’s a perfectly respectable viewpoint. We want to move toward a position where we don’t frame the issue as “either you’re an open person or a closed person.” If someone wants to restrict immigration, they’re not automatically a closed person or a bigot. Similarly, being open doesn’t necessarily mean supporting escalating levels of migration.
Instead, it would be more productive to acknowledge that there are faster and slower-paced individuals. If the slower-paced viewpoint wins in an election, reducing immigration is legitimate. Conversely, if those arguing for higher immigration—perhaps citing economic benefits—win the argument, then the numbers can increase. The key is ensuring that the chosen policy is seen as legitimate.
As long as the discussion avoids vilifying specific outgroups or labeling them as inferior or threatening, it should be considered a valid debate. Taboos around those harmful attitudes are understandable, but it’s not reasonable to impose taboos on the pace of change or the desire for familiarity. Attachment to an ingroup or preserving the current ethnic composition of a country at a slower pace is fundamentally different from outright racism.
Racism, in my view, involves either advocating for an ethnostate with no minorities or portraying outgroups as evil, inferior, or threatening. These are problematic positions. However, wanting to slow the pace of change isn’t racism. The longer we try to ignore this distinction, the more pressure builds up.
Jacobsen: Lastly, how do you see the pressures of demographic and cultural change manifesting in society? Are there specific examples that highlight these dynamics?
Kaufmann: When these views are suppressed, it leads to a sublimation effect. Populists then emerge as the voice for these repressed and sublimated opinions. Unfortunately, populists are often less likely to adhere to liberal norms and more likely to veer off into irrational tangents—whether it’s conspiracy theories about vaccines, extreme environmental skepticism, or inflammatory rhetoric about certain groups being rapists or criminals. This undermines the sound functioning of liberal democracy.
The real issue is that elite institutions and the establishment are constrained by an overly narrow set of taboos on these discussions. The key question is whether these institutions can reform themselves to allow for more open and balanced debates. Can they expand the parameters of acceptable discourse, or will they double down on suppressing these topics?
Unfortunately, populists like Trump sometimes make outrageous statements, reinforcing the belief among elites that they’re justified in maintaining these taboos. However, this only exacerbates the polarization dynamic, driving people further into opposing camps.
Jacobsen: Eric, thank you very much for taking the time to speak today. I appreciate it.
Kaufmann: Thanks a lot, and good luck with everything.
Lesia Ogryzko (@Ogryzko_L) stands at the forefront of Ukraine’s reconstruction, and reform efforts, making her a pivotal voice in shaping the country’s future. As a board member of RISE Ukraine, she spearheads international collaboration on initiatives critical to the nation’s recovery. Her leadership extends further as Director of the Sahaidachnyi Security Center and a Visiting Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Ogryzko’s extensive background in international relations and advocacy includes significant contributions through roles at the United Nations, USAID projects, and the Centre for Defence Strategies.
Ogryzko earned a Master’s degree in International Relations and Security Studies from the Institute of International Relations at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and a Master’s in European Public Affairs from Maastricht University in the Netherlands.
Ogryzko is a vocal proponent of innovative and sustainable solutions for Ukraine’s rebuilding. She has advocated for what many call Ukraine’s “Second Marshall Plan,” a monumental undertaking to address the $411 billion in damages assessed thus far, excluding regions still under occupation. The reconstruction effort focuses on decentralized energy, resilient infrastructure, and groundbreaking concepts such as underground schools, which aim to ensure security while fostering progress.
Ogryzko’s vision for Ukraine is rooted in modernization. She highlights the need to integrate green energy, strengthen security measures, and revamp social and economic systems to meet contemporary challenges. RISE Ukraine, a coalition of over 50 organizations, plays a vital role in these efforts, advocating for comprehensive reconstruction strategies and engaging with international partners.
In this interview, Ogryzko underscores the importance of donations, expertise, and military support in reducing long-term rebuilding costs and enhancing Ukrainian resilience. Her insights shed light on a nation’s determination not just to rebuild but to emerge stronger and more unified even as Russia continues its illegal war of aggression.
A Ukrainian soldier stands in the ruins of the Azovstal metalworks in Mariupol, Ukraine. (Dmytro Kozatsky/Azov Regiment via The Guardian)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Reconstruction is a critical issue, yet a common misconception persists that many believe rebuilding begins only after the war ends. In reality, reconstruction starts the moment the first missile strikes. Repair and rebuilding plans are set into motion immediately. Given this, what scale of reconstruction are we talking about for Ukraine? Moreover, how do ambitious and visionary goals factor into modernizing Ukraine’s infrastructure during this process?
Lesia Ogryzko: The scale is truly enormous. We are talking about the largest reconstruction project since the end of the Second World War, often called the “Second Marshall Plan.” It will surpass anything we’ve seen since the original Marshall Plan.
The World Bank, in collaboration with the Ukrainian government and the European Commission, conducts a biannual process of assessing the damages inflicted by Russia on Ukraine. The most recent assessment estimates damages at $411 billion. However, this figure only includes territories that can be assessed, excluding those under occupation. Approximately 18% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, is currently under Russian occupation.
Take Mariupol, a major city vital to Ukraine’s economy and home to a significant population. It is now under Russian occupation, and the catastrophic destruction inflicted on both the city and its residents is well-documented. The cost of reconstructing Mariupol alone is estimated to reach tens of billions. This highlights how the total damage figure significantly underestimates the true cost of reconstruction.
Regarding occupied territories such as Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, damage assessments cannot yet include these regions. It’s a long and devastating list.
Jacobsen: How substantial will Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts need to be for its energy infrastructure, particularly given the recent escalation of attacks targeting this critical sector?
Ogryzko: Perhaps. However, I wouldn’t speculate on an exact percentage. In some places, the costs will be lower, while in others, they will be significantly higher. Nevertheless, the total figure will certainly rise, and a new round of assessments is expected to be published in the coming weeks. Without question, the updated number will be even higher.
Jacobsen: The scale of energy reconstruction will undoubtedly be massive. Can you elaborate on the extent of the damage and the strategies Ukraine is employing to rebuild this critical infrastructure?
Ogryzko: This remains one of the most pressing and challenging aspects of rebuilding.
Jacobsen: What specific challenges is Ukraine facing in the energy sector, and how is the nation working to address them?
Ogryzko: Energy reconstruction will indeed be massive. 80% of Ukraine’s thermal generation capacity and approximately one-third of its hydroelectric generation have been destroyed. Unfortunately, this has become a deliberate tactic of the Russians. Seeing that they cannot break Ukrainian resilience, they have resorted to a war of attrition. By targeting energy infrastructure, they aim to destroy energy production and weaken the economy, businesses of all sizes, and people’s basic living conditions.
In many parts of Ukraine, electricity is directly tied to water and heating systems. By disrupting energy supplies, the Russians are affecting access to essential goods and services that people rely on in the 21st century. According to recent figures, energy infrastructure is a key target, with civilian infrastructure being 60 times more likely to be attacked than military sites. So, the scale of energy reconstruction will be enormous.
Ukraine is adopting a smart and asymmetric approach to rebuilding its energy sector. Ukraine is focusing on a decentralized energy system instead of reconstructing the outdated, centralized Soviet-style energy system, which is energy-intensive, costly, and highly vulnerable during wartime. This approach emphasizes smaller energy grids and networks rather than rebuilding large, centralized power plants.
For example, in April, the Trippila power plant—one of the largest electricity providers for three Ukrainian regions, including Kyiv—was destroyed by Russian attacks. The turbines, generators, transformers, and other key infrastructure were annihilated. Such incidents highlight the vulnerability of centralized systems. By transitioning to decentralized systems, Ukraine can minimize disruptions and improve resilience.
Since March of last year, Ukraine has faced severe challenges due to targeted missile attacks, but we are experiencing a surge in innovative energy solutions. There is an investment boom in smaller, decentralized, and innovative energy technologies. Civic initiatives and Ukrainian businesses are leading the way in producing, distributing, and popularizing these modern solutions.
Pictured: Lesia Ogryzko.(European Council on Foreign Relations)
Jacobsen: It’s an immense challenge but also an inspiring one. How have the Ukrainian public and other stakeholders received this shift in focus?
Ogryzko: There’s much optimism despite the circumstances. Humour and resilience are key for survival in war. As we often say, war, while devastating, also brings opportunities for positive change. This shift in energy infrastructure is one such change. I live in Ukraine and witnessed firsthand how technology, innovation, and determination reshape the country incredibly.
Jacobsen: I attended a conference in Toronto on rebuilding Ukraine, where I spoke with a construction company focused on nonflammable core infrastructure. Are concepts like decentralization, reduced flammability, and other innovations prioritized to ensure buildings are more resilient against future attacks?
Ogryzko: Yes, exactly. This is part of what we call “smart reconstruction.” We see reconstruction not simply as rebuilding what was destroyed but as an opportunity to modernize Ukraine’s economy, urban planning, buildings, and social infrastructure.
One example is the decentralized energy system I mentioned earlier. Another is precisely what you noted—new approaches to construction materials and building designs incorporating nonflammable and resilient infrastructure. Another is how we approach education. We must consider the reality that many people have left Ukraine, and unfortunately, not everyone will return. At some point, we will need to honestly discuss Ukraine’s actual population and adapt our social infrastructure accordingly.
For instance, some regions may no longer need as many schools as before. If a region previously had five schools but now only has enough children for one or two, it makes no sense to rebuild all five. Moreover, schools and other social infrastructure near the Russian border are among the first targets of attacks.
Jacobsen: What strategies are being implemented to address the challenges of rebuilding educational infrastructure in such an unpredictable and volatile environment?
Ogryzko: We are rethinking the concept of schools entirely. Instead of focusing on traditional school buildings, we’re exploring how to ensure universal access to education through alternative means. This includes improving Internet access, enhancing online education systems, and even considering constructing underground schools to provide safer learning environments.
This concept of smart reconstruction acknowledges that Ukraine will remain in a state of war for a very long time—possibly years or even generations. Unfortunately, given our geopolitical situation and the reality of our “crazy neighbour,” we face dire security challenges not only for ourselves but also for our children and grandchildren.
Every aspect of reconstruction must be viewed through a security lens. This means investing in underground social infrastructure, ensuring access to decentralized energy, and strengthening our national identity, which is the backbone of our resilience. Smart reconstruction is not just about rebuilding—it’s about preparing for the future while addressing immediate needs.
Jacobsen: Given the continued presence of Russia as a neighboring threat, this is undoubtedly a new approach. What is RISE Ukraine’s most significant initiative to tackle the challenges ahead?
Ogryzko: RISE Ukraine is a great example of how Ukraine’s civil society has become one of the backbones of reforms and the reform agenda in Ukraine since the 2013–2014 Revolution of Dignity. We are the largest expert coalition on reconstruction in Ukraine, and our strength lies in the diversity of our expert communities.
More than 50 Ukrainian and international organizations are involved. These include experts in decentralization, anti-corruption, green energy, sustainable reconstruction, urban planning, and many other fields. The scope of our work is vast because rebuilding Ukraine impacts every aspect of its economy and society. To address this complexity, we provide an in-depth analysis of all these areas and conduct advocacy with international partners and the Ukrainian government.
We serve as a consolidated voice of Ukrainian civil society. Local and international stakeholders often consult us on issues related to reconstruction. We are the go-to organization for many questions concerning Ukraine’s recovery.
Jacobsen: Finally, how can individuals get involved and contribute? Are there opportunities to donate time, money, expertise, or other resources to support reconstruction efforts?
Ogryzko: The best way is to visit our website. You can browse our team section and contact any members listed, including board members like myself. I handle many of our international partnerships, but the rest of the team is equally approachable.
We are also looking to expand into a new area that we initially should have prioritized but now realize is crucial for any reconstruction: security and defence. This is an essential prerequisite for meaningful recovery.
I often share a favourite motto with our international partners: “The best reconstruction tomorrow is weapons for Ukraine today.” What we try to explain is the direct correlation between Ukraine’s security situation and the resources that will eventually be needed for reconstruction. The more we can mobilize for defence now, the less we need to spend on rebuilding later.
For those concerned with humanitarian or reconstruction efforts, do not avoid discussing military aid. It is not just about the military but about defending civilians, saving lives, and preventing further destruction. Ensuring security, such as closing the skies over civilian areas, is our most immediate humanitarian act.
Jacobsen: Lesia, thank you for your time and insights today. I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.
Rick Rosner: In 2085, everyone will have an all-purpose robot that does everything. It’ll be like a smartphone, but with more functions—a Swiss army knife of technology. They’ll be called “Obes,” I’d guess. They’ll start as “omnibots,” then shorten to “obots,” and eventually just “obes.” People’s strongest emotional connection with another being might be with their Obes, at least if it happens as early as 2085, though maybe later.
Most people will end up having sexual relations with their Obes. As for their shape, it’s unclear whether they’ll be human-sized, but they’ll definitely have features that make them sexually attractive. There’ll be plenty of arguments and outrage about how human connections are replaced by Obes.
2100 and beyond. I haven’t thought about that yet, so I don’t have any answers. But it came up during one of my discussions today. It’s obvious from the chatbots that, even though AI doesn’t know anything yet, can’t think yet, and isn’t conscious, it behaves as though it thinks. All of its responses come from conscious human writing.
So, it essentially behaves like it has mental faculties, but it’s just probability that makes it do so. It’s interesting that AI can become biased or inappropriate when enough people feed it biased or sexual content. It learns to imitate that behavior because of how it’s trained.
So, it’s clear that we should educate AI to have human values as much as we can until it becomes capable of thinking for itself. Even then, we should proceed cautiously.
Jacobsen: Do you think we can keep AI under control by carefully training it?
Rosner: I think the answer is no, as soon as I think about it. But, carefully engineering or limiting the messaging AI receives…
Jacobsen: Maybe, in the long term, it might be engineering us.
Rosner: It will. On the way to that, you’d want AI to have some utilitarianism built into it or trained into it, such as the greatest good for the greatest number. You don’t want the AI to be required to engage in actions that involve complicated situations where what’s good or bad isn’t so clear, depending on the AI’s responsibilities or the reasoning we ask it to do.
But what you wouldn’t want is for the AI to behave malevolently for no good reason, except that its training allowed for it. But, yes, the idea that we can control AI and its training beyond a certain point—that’s what you hear. People argue that we should control AI. We should limit it because it’s dangerous. You hear a couple of instances, examples of what AI could do that’s dangerous.
If you tell it that its task is to make paper clips, the danger is that it could turn everything into paper clips. But beyond that, there isn’t much, and even then, people aren’t that upset. People are getting ready to be upset, but the threat doesn’t feel close enough for people to experience real distress. People aren’t arguing about specific, plausible things that AI could do. There’s the general worry, like the Terminator scenario, where AI starts a global nuclear war, and then it tries to mop up the survivors. But there’s not even any discussion about whether that is plausible at all. There’s a lot of generalized worry with no specific cases or strategies. Do you agree or not?
Jacobsen: Specific strategies are going to be the way to go.
Rosner: Yes. But, is anybody doing that?
Jacobsen: I would think some people are trying to figure out how to do that. Here’s my objection to everyone in the AI space: I don’t see this anywhere, but I will say it. What we are calling general intelligence, or superintelligence, will likely be categorized as narrow intelligence relative to some future image of how super AI will define itself.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: So everything relative to that will be specialized, which is, in a way, a theological argument. If you take the Ed Fredkin informational or digital physics view, if I were to extend that informational view to Big Mind, then everything beneath that would, in a way, be a narrow form of intelligence because it’s so vast by comparison. The suppleness would be incredible in comparison, though it would be structured and function by rules.
If you take a modern, non-theological, non-magical way of looking at that, you could have big mainframes that might be a kilometer wide by a kilometer long by a kilometer deep, even, with super transistors or quantum computers working out noise effects, and those would become the equivalent. So, if you were to compare us to that, on a curve or not–maybe the next step on the curve might be a mischaracterization–because it will be able to go in different directions.
So, in a way, Ray Kurzweil is quite simplistic, though accurate, when he uses his Law of Accelerating Returns. Because what we’re getting at is, it’s almost as though, if you were to add a z-axis to that Law of Accelerating Returns, facets of intelligence would begin to fracture off in all kinds of directions once agency is built into it.
Rosner: That raises the question: Is there one dominant superintelligence that uses its superintelligence to amass all the computational resources in the world, or will there be competition among various superintelligences? And how nasty will they be when they fight with each other? I imagine that in the future, we’ll see AI wars that will wipe out a lot of stuff.
Jacobsen: Nature gives us a good example of this. We’re going to have to own the fact that any lifeform, no matter what it is, will take up some niche. There will be competition and cooperation. Was it Kropotkin who wrote Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution? You have competition and mutual aid or cooperation. Similarly, you’ll have this with what will be valuable for computation. More computation might not necessarily be the most important factor in getting more computation. But there might be other ways of looking at resource extraction to get more computation. Because at some point, there needs to be homeostasis.
Rosner: So, the ability—there could be naive philosophizing by AIs who decide that nothing is better than existence. Because nothing means there’s no struggle, no consciousness, so you might as well burn it all down. I could see that happening periodically with AIs, and so, the most powerful AIs would be on guard for stuff like that. I see there’s a non-zero chance that the most powerful AIs could be paternalistic.
They’re ruthless, maybe, in defending their existence and the existence of things they value, but with an eye toward order and utilitarianism. What do you think?
Jacobsen: Sounds like a benevolent dictatorship by nature, being awake.
Rosner: Doesn’t it make sense that, among the various, at least temporary outcomes, this is one that’s not necessarily guaranteed but has a non-zero chance of happening?
Jacobsen: It could be the reason for the Fermi Paradox, where super-advanced intelligences have a prime directive-style ethic: Why bother? And don’t mess with lower-conscious systems.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve heard commentary from Democrats suggesting that if they lose the next election, it will be the last Democratic election. I’ve also heard Elon Musk say that if the Democrats win, it will be the last Democratic election for the Republicans. So, let’s talk about it.
Rick Rosner: One thing is that Republicans, especially under Trump, have shown a huge willingness to manipulate the rules of democracy and a lack of concern for fair play. Yes, if Trump gets elected, he will likely try to manipulate things. Will he try to stay president for life? I find that unlikely, especially since he’ll be 82 when he leaves office. Any such attempt would be limited by his age and declining mental faculties. But yes, there will be abuses of democracy under Trump. Will it be the end of democracy? No, but it could lead to abuses that solidify Republican control in many states—something that started in 2010 with Project Red Map, where Republicans realized they could amass power by focusing on state elections rather than national ones. By electing state senators instead of national senators, they were able to take control of three-quarters of the state legislatures. They gerrymandered everything and got away with a lot by following this strategy. Democracy didn’t go away, but there were a lot of undemocratic results as Republicans figured out how to amass power.
On the other hand, if Democrats win, it could be the end of Republican dominance. Well, you’d hope so, because the Republicans have gotten more extreme with each election loss. Every time they lose, pundits like Karl Rove say it should teach the Republicans a lesson, and they need to seriously reexamine themselves and find ways to appeal to more people. Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once since 1988. Their policies are unpopular, but they haven’t been held accountable because of the Electoral College and gerrymandering, which still allow them to wield power even though their policies are disliked by 70-80% of Americans.
If Republicans don’t win this election, demographics will continue to make it harder for them to win in the future. The U.S. is currently about 60-61% white, depending on how you define white. In the next 20 years, whiteness will still be the largest racial group, but it will become a plurality, not a majority, which will make it more difficult for Republicans to win. If Trump loses, the MAGA movement will likely die off as people with early cognitive decline, who have been drawn into propaganda, age out. This will further reduce their political influence.
Demographically and because Republicans refuse to change their policies, which are largely controlled by billionaires who benefit from them, the Democrats, with any competence, should be able to hold the presidency for the next 16 years. Unless, of course, there are unforeseen changes in political messaging or campaigning.
Jacobsen: It’s fair within a liberal analysis, yes. It’s balanced, within that context.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is there any damage to your hair from dyeing your hair?
Rick Rosner: It depends on how much you dye it. If you dye your hair repeatedly blonde, that’s super harsh if you’re starting from black or dark brown. So yes, you’ll—why are we talking about dyeing your hair? I’m the question guy.
Well, generally not. Though people who work in salons dyeing other people’s hair have a higher cancer rate because that shit’s pretty harsh. Stripping color out of black or brown hair is brutal, and getting color to embed in hair takes powerful chemicals. I’m sure they sell gentler dyes for people who are nervous about that.
Gentler dyes, if they work as well. So, done correctly… you hear about actors who’ve been forced to dye their hair several different colors in succession as they take on different roles, and their hair falls out or breaks from too much time. So, here you go.
Jacobsen: Did you ever play a musical instrument?
Rosner: I took piano lessons. I hated it. I didn’t want to practice. I had no interest in getting good at piano. Though I can see in retrospect, that’s a skill. If you’re at a party with a piano, you can sit down and start knocking out tunes. That might be worth getting laid once over the course of your life.
That, on average, being able to play the piano might be worth one getting lucky. A lot of shit has to happen. You have to be at a party with a piano. You have to be good enough at playing piano that you can sit there and improvise to the tone of the room, and somebody has to be impressed enough to take you home. So that seems like a lot of work for not a lot of payoff.
Then I played the trombone from 4th grade through 8th grade, 9th grade. I was not good. I had little feel for the music. What I should have done was—teachers, not all, but some teachers—felt they could diss me to my face. Because, I guess, by 1st grade or second grade, I was known to be a genius. So that was my thing.
I didn’t walk around with my nose in the air. It was what was known, and it gave our music teacher license to say I sucked. She said I was the least talented music student she’d ever had. And this meant that I never tried singing again until high school when we found out that the show choir and the cast of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar were having parties every night where a lot of people were getting debased.
But we, my friends and I, decided we wanted to be in choir to see if we could get some of that. In choir, I wasn’t the worst fucking singer in the world. If I’d had an earlier interest and pursued it, I possibly could have been a competent singer, which, when I try to sing now, I’m close to being able to carry a tune. I can see liking having that ability.
Did you play an instrument?
Jacobsen: I was in choir. That was a bass in choir. Was in for about 2 and a half years, maybe, and we hired part of the VSO, it was super fun.
Rosner: Did you enjoy it?
Jacobsen: I loved choir. I had so much fun.
Rosner: I did it, but I fell asleep in every class because it didn’t take much for me to fall asleep. I was burning the candle at both ends. And if the teacher was working with the Altos or whatever, I’d be asleep in 20 seconds. It was so… this was 1977 and 78, and the choir teacher was fucking one of his students. Everybody knew it.
The whole choir would make fun of him for it. He was married, but he was having a hot, fucking intense affair with one of the better singers. Given that, I guess, in the seventies, it wasn’t creepy or pervy. They thought it was just, “What the fuck are you doing?” because he was married.
It didn’t have the same feel that it would today. There would be a violation of power dynamics, which would be tantamount to rape. Nobody was thinking, “This isn’t a fun, interesting thing happening in our choir.” Nobody had been taught how to think about power dynamics. The girl was a great singer.
They had obviously bonded initially over their love of singing, and that turned into a romantic relationship. When I returned to high school in the 80s, my sister’s best friend had a history of having relationships with her teachers. She had an affair with one while she was still in school and later married another teacher after graduating. This was Albuquerque, a town that adheres to traditional gender roles—it’s a redneck town.
I’m sure it’s less redneck now, but the more conservative a town is, at least as I observed it in the 80s, the greater the acceptable age difference between guys and the girls they date. So, if you were a 24- or 25-year-old construction worker dating a 16- or 17-year-old girl in Albuquerque in the 80s, nobody would think you’re a predator. The question would simply be, “Is she attractive?” And she probably was, because she was 17, and you were dating her.
Things were different back then, for what it’s worth. Is it better now that we’re aware of power dynamics? Yes, it probably is, as it discourages sexual abuse. But historically, Romeo and Juliet were supposed to be, what, 14 or something? Anyway, back in the 80s in Albuquerque, teachers were paid $2,000 a month. Some teachers were there because they loved teaching, even though the pay was low. Others were there because they were lazy, and teaching isn’t the hardest job. Maybe some teachers were there because they liked the students—I don’t know.
Rick Rosner: So yesterday, we were talking about 2045. In talking about it, I kind of got the idea that it’s gonna be much like now, with all the weirdness being fairly superficial. 20 years after that, down the road, the weirdness will be more deeply penetrating. There will be all sorts of conscious non-organic entities. There will be humans merged with AIs.
The beginning, it’ll be rich people—maybe rich tech people—either trying to merge themselves with bio-circuitry or some setups that increase their brain power, their information processing ability, or help fix their failing old brains. Or they’ll be paying people to be experimental subjects, the way Musk is doing. If he pays people, but he won’t stick a chip in his head until he sees that it works in other people. He says he has it working in other people to some extent. His ideal subjects now are people who can’t do anything.
Well, because they’re paralyzed. So they need something in their head to help them operate stuff, if that’s feasible. People who are paralyzed are probably more amenable to taking the risk of having hardware installed in their heads. By 2065, court cases will start popping up about the rich guy who wants to marry his robot girlfriend, or the rich guy whose brain is failing and still wants to maintain all of his “self,” or her “self,” by claiming they’re still him or her, even though they’re mostly artificial circuitry at this point.
Medicine—well, it will take a long time to know whether longevity medicine works because you have to live long enough to see if it helps you fight off dying. So 2065 is only 40-some years from now. If you’ve got a bunch of boomers who are over 100 or near 100—no, in 2065, the youngest boomer would be 101—if you’ve got a bunch of them who still can walk around, think, and have the bodies and minds of 80-year-olds, then that’ll be fairly convincing proof that longevity medicine is starting to work.
The devices in 2045, they’re a little bit robot-y. Your cell phone might have little legs so it can hold on to you. In 2065, people’s devices are gonna be a lot more like little robots. Some of them might come in whimsical shapes. In my novel, they start selling pocket stars, which are little Barbie-sized robots who have the personalities of the stars they look like.
So if you wanted a little Taylor Swift to hang out with and be your friend, and she’s 12 inches tall, and she says Taylor Swift-y things, and maybe she’s your assistant in some way, I can see people wanting that. We’ll start to see the beginning of helper armies, robot armies. The falling birth rates mean we’ll have a ton of older people. They’ll be tended to by robots. It’ll be the market for robots, and robots will be competent enough. Right now, our only household robot is a vacuum cleaner.
It seems to work, and people seem to like it. By 2065, robots will do a lot of other shit, and people will feel about the first household robots the way they feel about self-driving cars—liking it, but wary because of all the fuck-ups that will happen. I’m guessing that more automation, tech disruption, and helper robots will obviously fuck the hell out of the workplace, but they may also disrupt other systems.
Where in 2045, traditional couple structures will still be in place, and that’ll remain true in 2065, but maybe only for 85% to 88% of all people in relationships, as opposed to 98% in 2045. The extra 12% will be in non-traditional relationships, maybe facilitated by AI and robots. I’m talking out of my ass at this point.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Who is your favorite philosopher?
Rick Rosner: That I have one? What Wittgenstein’s or Kierkegaard’s or most people’s most famous philosophers’ philosophy was, I don’t know. I can say one sentence about existentialism. I started taking a grad-level course in phenomenology when I was at CU, but I quickly quit going to class. My favorite philosophers are physicists or metaphysicists. What about you?
Jacobsen: In a lot of ways, when I listen to a lot of physicists, they do sound like philosophers. They talk about the structure of the world in a quasi-philosophic way. But my favorite philosopher…
Rosner: Hold on, before you do that, I wish there were more philosophizing in physics. Trying to answer the big questions is somewhat frowned upon as being beyond the realm of science. Yes. But, anyway, your favorite philosopher?
Jacobsen: Jordi Savall who is a musician.
Rosner: What’s his philosophy?
Jacobsen: It’s not a structured thing. It’s more commentaries on music, and I find his certain philosophy about life that comes out of that. It’s not an epistemology or an ontology about reality. It’s more certain takes on life.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think Walz is doing a good job and a bad job at as the running mate?
Rick Rosner: Yes. He’s behind. He had little glitches that the Republicans tried to make hay off of, but they don’t seem persuasive. Walz claimed to have been in Hong Kong when the Tiananmen Square massacre happened.
Somebody looked at his travel itinerary, and it turns out he wasn’t even in the same city when the massacre happened. He was cornered with this at the VP debate, and he goes, “Sometimes I get too enthusiastic, and I misspeak. I misspoke.” Does it matter?
Shit, that’s gotten people in trouble. Hillary got in trouble for saying that she’d been in a helicopter that had come under fire. It turns out they looked at her itinerary from 10 years ago when she was going to Kosovo, and she’d never been in a helicopter that had been fired on.
Jacobsen: Did this cost her votes?
Rosner: It almost certainly did. There was a reporter who got in trouble for saying the same thing. The reporter who said he was under fire in a helicopter had lost his network job. But, anyway, it doesn’t seem like stolen honor to me. These people were intentionally making up shit to look cooler. They’ve been in helicopters. The helicopters take evasive maneuvers in some of the toughest cities in the world. They’ve seen movies. They’ve seen footage, so they get confused. They misremember. I assume that’s what happened with Walls, and that inaccuracy seems even less consequential than saying you were under fire in a helicopter.
Rosner: But he always claimed to have been in China, not even in the same city when the massacre happened. What does that say about anything?
Jacobsen: Yes. So that’s fine. He’s fine. His net approval is still the highest of the 4 candidates: the 2 VPs and the 2 presidential candidates. He’s at 10% positive net approval.
Rosner: No. He’s at 4% net approval. Harris is at 0.8%, and Trump and Vance are at negative 10%.
Rick Rosner: So Project 2025 has been around longer than a year or two, but it had different names in the past. I’m not sure how old the Heritage Foundation is, but it’s probably 40 or 50 years old. It’s their agenda, but it’s not necessarily Trump’s agenda. Even if Trump gets elected, they won’t be able to enact all of it because Trump’s politically inept, and there will be resistance from Democrats, maybe even some Republicans. But, yes, it’s pretty extreme. Trump and Vance disavow being aligned with it, but they are.
The election—so Harris is about 3 points ahead in raw general aggregated poll numbers, which makes me nervous. I was hoping that she would be 8 points ahead by now, like Biden was by late October in 2020. One problem with her gaining much more is that we’re only at about 3% undecided voters, compared to 2016 when there were 15% undecided. So, there aren’t that many undecideds. You’d have to flip Trump voters, which is a tough thing to do because a lot of them are fanatical.
The good thing, according to Carl Allen, whom we talked with, is that with so few undecided voters in a ton of polls, Kamala Harris is close to or above 50%. So if that’s accurate, she might be winning some stuff even though her lead is not big. Carl Allen said that more important than the spread is how close you are to 50%. I’ve been looking at early voting statistics because some states report how many people have voted so far. So far, from the states that have reported, you can look at 2.4 million votes with 4 weeks to go, which is about 1.5% of everybody who will end up voting, maybe a little more.
The one heartening statistic out of all the data is that some states report voters by gender. Now, in the reporting states, the spread—don’t use the spread—here I am using the spread between female and male voters. It’s roughly 9.2%. But if you look back at the history of voting, women have outvoted men for the past 25 to 30 years. There are more women on the planet than men by a little bit. More women are registered to vote than men, and more women turn out to vote than men. So, in the 2020 election, women were 53.1% of voters, or about for every 7 men who voted, about 8 women voted.
And we won 2020. But women were also that same proportion of voters in 2016, where we lost. What I’m hoping is that women turn out to vote in this election in overwhelming numbers because a lot of women voting are gonna be voting for women. Women vote Democratic in general, but this year they have extra reason to because of Roe. So, I’m hoping by the time everything’s tabulated that women are 54 or 55% of all voters, which is possible. We’ve gotten close in past elections.
Trump continues to talk lies and trash, and it continues to make no difference among his followers. That’s about it.
Rick Rosner: So, it looks… Iran looks like they tested a nuke a day or two ago. It’s not confirmed, but they had what reads on the Richter scale as an earthquake, except it’s not in a place that has earthquakes, and the timing is suspicious.
So by 2045, odds are, 25% that we’ll have some limited nuclear exchange someplace. If humanity were smart, we’d do… have you ever watched or read Watchmen?
Jacobsen: Yes, the comic book made into a major MCU movie.
Rosner: Good.
So, if people were smart, they would give us a similar close call, something kind of similar to the end of Watchmen, to remind people that we don’t want a nuclear war. It would be a nuclear exchange that gets intercepted with minimal loss of life—an actual conspiracy designed to scare the shit out of everybody. I’m not saying that’s gonna happen because conspiracies are stupid and generally less probable than shit just happening in the course of things. But anyway, we might… there are plenty of places that could exchange nukes—India, Pakistan, Israel, anybody around Israel, North Korea versus any Western country, yes, Russia, US. Doesn’t South Africa have nukes? I don’t think they’re gonna nuke anybody. But then there are dirty nukes.
So they don’t explode, they just scatter.
Jacobsen: Yes. Anyway, what else? Alliances.
Rosner: How people think of this is… it comes from Doctorow, Cory Doctorow. When we think of ourselves in the world, I think of myself as an American first, as a Jew third, fourth as a married guy, second as a guy, somewhere in there. A lot of the shit I do, I do as a cis guy. As an old-ish guy, as a guy who likes to think he’s smart. There are lots of self-definitions we have.
Those will be changing. Do you think of yourself as a Canadian first?
Jacobsen: No. I think of myself as a citizen of the world, cosmopolitan. As a result, citizen of Canada because we live in a global system ruled by nation-states. Therefore, that’s the assumption at that scale.
Rosner: Well, it won’t be national thinking in the future. You’re defining yourself in terms of your nation, but 20 years from now, your nation will still have a lot of control over you. But our thinking of ourselves as representatives or typical members of a nation, maybe that starts… it’s probably moving down the list of ways we think of ourselves. It’s obvious that gender self-definitions will get looser, which we’ve talked about until it’s a cliché. That women, especially hot women, don’t have a crisis of identity if they get drunk at a party and make out with another hot woman. Even diddle the other woman’s boob or go down.
But I would be weirded out if I were at a party and somehow ended up touching somebody else’s dick. It would never happen. I would never let it happen. Maybe sexual exchange… I get to fuck the most beautiful woman I’ve ever been with, but somehow as part of the deal, I’ve gotta jerk off a guy. It’s… in the creepy terms of that… maybe. But I don’t… but anyway, future people are gonna be—no. I don’t know. Whatever. If shit happens, we already know there’s a trend for shit not happening. When shit happens, it might be a hookup off of a shopping-for-sex app, Tinder, Grindr, without going anywhere or just seeing if it can go anywhere, but people are super willing to give up.
Rosner: That’s probably the model now, is you’re less willing to give shit a shot. You or at least you say you are, but the shot you’re willing to give isn’t much of a shot. Is that a reasonable thought?
Jacobsen: Yes. It seems to be the general online content. So those who spend a lot of time online, they’re probably spending more time in passivity, resentment. Vague and quaint hopefulness in traditional societal narratives in the West, and also the toxic elements of, basically, electronic versions of ideologies of resentment.
Rosner: Yes. But it’s gonna be interesting. Sell them for men… yes. In hookup culture, across different ages, most people I’m sure—the percent overweight or obese of Americans, probably everybody, every place, goes up by age. You’re skinnier in your twenties than in your thirties, then in your forties. If we turn into an Ozempic culture, I wonder if everybody will be hotter, in 1970s terms. Not everybody’s gonna look like Farrah Fawcett, but there might be a ton more women who weigh 135, 138, 140 pounds than there are now. Will that overcome people’s reluctance to break their isolation? What else?
Jacobsen: Money.
Rosner: People are gonna have to get paid for more ridiculous stuff. Unless you disagree about any of this—that it will feel to people from this era more like socialism in the future. But it won’t be socialism. It’ll be some modern economics based on shit being disrupted. I suspect we’ll have to come up with ways to pay people something for being consumers, for helping keep the economy running. We’ll have to come up with places like Finland, where you can go ahead and pay people and say, “This is how we keep our economy running. It’s no big deal.”
You’re gonna get $3,500 a month to help you get by. You can have a job and make more, but with $3,500, you’re close to being able to get by. People in Finland are gonna be like, “That doesn’t freak us out.” People in America wouldn’t be happy with that.
It seems like socialism or communism or whatever, but if you’re dumb enough to hang on to it, so we’re gonna have to come up with a different system that works, starts to work in a similar way, but doesn’t freak people out. Does that sound reasonable?
Jacobsen: There is a reasonable aspect to it.
Rosner: That’s all I thought about 2045. I was reading some stories of people who say a lesbian woman is dating another woman, so it fits their traditional sex relations and gender relations. Then one of them transitions to a male and identifies as a man, so the orientation of that relationship changes entirely.
Jacobsen: It raises a lot of questions about identity and not only gender identity, but the sexual architecture of the setup for those two in that same relationship that’s become more complicated sexually. They could still have the same gender relations as woman and former woman.
Rosner: Yes, in I agree with you about all of that. There’s gonna be a lot of that. But what will change more slowly is, regardless of what gender they change into or don’t change into or their sexual orientation, it’s still gonna be a couple of people who get along for the most part. They come home from the shit they’ve been doing all day. There’s dinner, maybe, but they spend time together. They sleep in the same bed, and it’s two people in a relationship for years at a time, sometimes with kids.
2045 is too early for some of the drastic science fiction-y shit of the farther future where it’s eight people in some weird, community, sexual anything goes, everybody’s raising everybody else’s kids together. I’m not sure even that’s workable in the near and medium future, because the odds that something works go down exponentially with increasing numbers of people.
Maybe 50, 80 years from now when you’ve got AI minders to make everything more seamless in terms of relationships, in terms of raising kids, in terms of where you spend each night. Maybe all the helping people will get will make it easier to do crazy swingery, community, ever-shifting shit.
Rick Rosner: So, I thought we would talk, maybe in chunks, about the future moving forward. This is the same scheme as Charles Stross’s novel Accelerando, which is a novel about AI fucking transforming everything. He probably wrote it 20 years ago now. But with 2045, your devices will be a lot more intimately linked.
we already have earpieces, but they’re stupid now. You have to stick them in your ears. There’ll be contact lenses. There’ll be glasses. AR will, in terms of average hours of use per day in a population, I’m guessing AR will be more than VR. Don’t you think?
Jacobsen: AR will be more than VR in the future?
Rosner: Yes, you’re gonna be in augmented reality six hours a day. You’re gonna be in virtual reality three and a half.
Jacobsne: I used to do writing for a place that did a lot of interest pieces on AR and VR. It was a guy who reached out to me after doing a bunch of work for a fashion outlet, so we worked together a little bit after putting that stuff out. That was interesting. I had a little bit of an issue in that distinction between AR and VR.
AR is limited VR. It has an interactivity with the real world, but if you get a world in VR that is as realistic as the real world, but you could even get meta on that and make a world so realistic in VR that it tricks the person. You knock them out and wake them up with the set on, making them think they’re in the real world. And then, in the virtual world, they’re putting on a set of glasses for AR, so you have a VR/AR experience. It’s layered that way, and that could totally happen in the future if it gets that realistic. I’m saying 20 years from now.
Rosner: It’s for the average person, not a gamer or someone who lives online extensively. For the average schmuck, they’re not gonna be spending that much time in VR, quite a bit, but not the matrix.
Jacobsen: There’ll be medicine, good preventative medicine. There’ll be actual medicine that’s thought to add 20 years to your lifespan—maybe 15, 18, 20 years to your healthy lifespan.
Rosner: So, the promises made by the medicine will be that at 70, you’ll look like you’re in your late forties, and you’ll feel it, and you can still get some. Some of the medicine will be a daily deal, some of it will be pumped into you by some little wearable/surgical gadget.
Jacobsen: Like metformin?
Rosner: Yes, for instance. If it trickled into you whenever you came near food, that would probably be a good thing to have. There’ll be some periodical advancements, of course. It’ll be a mix of lunatic quackery all the way to tech bros spending $120,000,000 a year on it, and most people in the middle adopting some reasonable behaviors to live longer.
Ozempic. You’re a fool now if you don’t, as far as I know. Maybe it’ll change in a couple of years, but if you can get Ozempic—and it’s expensive now if you don’t have a prescription—but eventually, the patent will expire, and you’ll be able to get generic. So, everybody’s gonna be on Ozempic or something similar that comes after.
So you can eat like a fucking monster and stay not fat. There’ll be some other health things. I was talking to an immunologist once a week. We meet on PodTV. I tried to ask him, “Is the 21st century gonna be the century of pandemics?” and didn’t get an answer out of him.
But now in California, 10 to 15% of our cows are dying of bird flu. Whether they’re dying of it or being murdered because of bird flu being cold, it’s a ton. I’m sure it’s fucking up the whole dairy industry. A month ago, agronomists were saying it was gonna hit 2%, but now, no—it’s more. It’s a fucking ton.
Rosner: I’d argue that, yes, the 20th century was the century of mass murder, but it was also the century of pandemics killing a shit ton of people. Probably not as many as wars and genocides, but not too different.
Jacobsen: So, I assume by 2045, we may have had one of those—a big, scarier pandemic than COVID.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dark chocolate or vanilla chocolate?
Rick Rosner: Dark. Vanilla chocolate isn’t even fucking chocolate.
Jacobsen: Yes. Yes. Try telling that to a horse girl. Sweet stuff.
Rosner: The darker, the better, up to some ridiculous point, like 85%.
Jacobsen: Yes. I’m good to comfortably, regularly, 70%.
Rosner: Yes. 70 is there. 70 is Tollhouse morsels that go into one of the best cookies ever invented.
Jacobsen: I didn’t know that. They have a big Belgian bar at Walmart. It’s cheap. It’s delicious. It’s well made. You put it in the freezer. You make sure it’s frozen solid. So it takes a little bit of time. I haven’t calculated it. I don’t care.
So, here’s my recipe for delicious chocolate. 70% thick chocolate bar, maybe half a centimetre, three-quarter centimetre thick, and it could be up to six, or eight inches long, but maybe four. You take that bar, and you put it in the freezer, until it’s frozen solid.
ou take it out. Make sure it’s ridged in evenly made segments, four by 6, 4 by 4. I don’t care. Whatever. You take it, you find a hard counter, you get it on the seam down, and crack it once. So, let’s say there are 4, and I have a row of 4 pieces. You crack it for a double and get a nice, crunchy, crumbly dark chocolate. That’s the best for me.
Rosner: I’m with you until the freezing part because I’m afraid of chewing chocolate, and then you don’t get the full taste. So you swallow it without getting every melty taste of it.
There was a delicious, not dark, medium chocolate called Ice Cubes, a candy from my teen years, that was so creamy that it was always on the verge of melting. That shit, you put it on your tongue, and it was great. I assumed it was called Ice Cubes because if you didn’t keep it cold, it would be a problem.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I am house-sitting. I’m taking care of two dogs. I should specify—I love animals after taking care of these dogs, but I think I prefer being without them, except maybe a cat or two. So, my thought about this is that I like animals. I enjoy living with dogs, but their repertoire is limited. As you’d expect, they don’t have fingers. They can’t do all the things they do, which isn’t much—they have to do everything with their mouths.
Rick Rosner: And so, one dog here, you’ve met our dogs.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: The dumber dog maybe knows zero words. It knows…
Jacobsen: that one surprised me on dumper and looked at me like, “Hey, why are you here?” And I’m asking, “Why are you here?”
Rosner: Yes. That dog was never raised among other dogs, was never expected to respond to commands, is part whippet, and what the fuck else? Probably not a Chihuahua. It is skittish and isn’t built for learning anything. Plus, we’re lazy as fuck. I was discussing this at Rosh Hashanah dinner with someone working for a powerful show business couple. They have a person in charge of training their dogs.
And that backs up my point that regular people don’t have the time or the patience to do the excellent job of dog training, which one would need to get dogs who act like trained dogs.
Our other dog knows many things—the little white one. But whether she chooses to listen that’s a different matter. She’s an asshole. If she is upstairs and has to pee, she might not go downstairs because it’s a pain. So, she’ll pee on the carpet. It’s not a “fuck you.” It’s just that she had to pee.
And, so I’m writing this—you don’t know the secret of my novel. It’s about a dog.
Jacobsen: Did the answer to 42 come up?
Rosner: No, it didn’t. Well, probably not.
Jacobsen: No. No. No. It’s a dog, so it’s backwards. The answer is 24. God.
Rosner: Anyway, I’m not a fan of 42 because it’s six times seven, which adds up to 13, which makes me nervous. You don’t have to be. It’s not God, it’s dog. So it’s 24. Anyway, pets don’t have that much going on. And if they do have things going on—monkeys, for example—they still don’t have that much going on. What they do have is dangerous as fuck. You might make a wrong move, and they might bite your face off.
You’ve worked with horses. Horses don’t have that much going on either. You can train them. You must train them because they’re part of your job. Yes, if you’ve got a job that involves horses. But, even raccoons, you’d think they’d be smarter because they have fingers. Squirrels have fingers. Squirrels are pretty fun. They’re pricks, however. They’re always fucking around.
They love to joke around. They play pranks and tease dogs and maybe people. But yes, animals are no substitute for the sophistication of people. But they are pretty lovable, especially dogs because their whole deal is to be loved. My temperament aligns more with cats, but I can get along with most medium-sized dogs. It’s the tiny dogs, though, because when you want to walk them, they give up.
Our dogs don’t get walked anymore.
Jacobsen: I walk these two dogs twice daily. They’re nice around the block, but I try to make it a brisk walk because I try to do that and get back to whatever the hell I was doing. And it’s good for them to have short and rapid walks because they won’t get high intensity. So, they drag ass.
Rosner: I’ve read that humans have a deficiency that animals don’t. For us to stay in shape, we have to work at it. Animals—dogs, horses, and I assume cats, and what the fuck else—probably most mammals and maybe reptiles, they stay buff for no reason. They don’t have to exercise to stay in shape.
So that seems like a bullshitty thing for humans, that we have to do that. But it makes sense.
If we’re going to live sedentary lives using our minds, maybe the built-in buffs weren’t conserved evolutionarily over history. I don’t fucking know. But it’s a pain to have to work out every day when your fucking dog can stay ripped for nothing. Those are my thoughts.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If earthly civilization survives, is there a principle that the longer a civilization endures, the more it contributes to the universe?
Rick Rosner: If you look at the set of all possible moments in a universe that follows the principles of existence, and there’s no upper limit to the size of a universe, there’s an argument that universes could persist indefinitely. So that’s a whole other concept far into the future. And for a universe to persist, does it need the active participation of conscious beings within it? I find the anthropic principle a bit problematic, which claims that the universe’s conditions are a certain way because otherwise, life wouldn’t have evolved. I don’t love that argument, but there’s another anthropic argument to consider, one that hasn’t been made yet: does order increase in the universe?
The amount of information in a universe generally increases over time. Does order in the universe increase and change in nature? And does this changing order require the participation of increasingly ordered, sophisticated, powerful, intelligent beings within the universe? I don’t know. But it’s possible that a civilization of sufficient power could help a universe persist by manipulating matter on a large scale to prevent massive collapse in parts of the universe—or, at the very least, to escape collapsing regions.
That’s thing one. Thing two, before I get sidetracked, is this: you’d think that with increasing numbers of particles in a universe, the number of possible universes would increase exponentially with the amount of matter or particles. But I wonder—though I don’t know as much about quantum physics as I should- whether that exponential increase or some larger growth is true. Due to quantum entanglement, the number of possible states for universes with a given number of particles may not increase as widely as expected. If quantum entanglement means there’s large-scale indeterminacy, and you’ve got big regions acting like quantum computers or other quantum-entangled systems, maybe these large areas of the universe are like the box containing Schrödinger’s cat, with superimposed states—like alive cat and dead cat.
In a quantum computer, you’ve got a lot of superimposed states, which, if all entangled, could mean a reduction in possible moments for that part of the universe. This overlapping of states may result in fewer unique moments because multiple different moments are combined into one. I don’t know enough quantum physics to tell you if that’s reasonable or not or what the implications are.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let’s get into some other issues. What’s going to happen in the U.S. with all the guns?
Rick Rosner: Right now, there are about 400 million guns in the U.S., around 250 million adult Americans, and roughly 16 million guns sold every year—more under Democratic administrations because the NRA often warns that Democrats will restrict gun rights, which rarely happens in practice.
By 2027, there could be nearly half a billion guns in America. I don’t think that’s something that can be easily resolved, except in the way we’ve discussed: making people invulnerable by developing technology that could make consciousness scannable, downloadable, and replicable, which is at least 50 years away. There’s also a common near-future science fiction trope where the U.S. could fragment into several countries—where the South secedes again, or California says “screw you” to the rest of the country. It’s a possibility for the future.
Ideally, the U.S.—along with Canada and Mexico—should come together as a united North American continent. Each country has strengths the others could benefit from.
As for Mexico, the U.S. should focus on strengthening ties with it. While Mexico has its challenges, it also has the potential to address some immigration issues at its southern border, which is only about 150 miles long, compared to the U.S.-Mexico border, which stretches 1,954 miles. If the aim is to manage immigration more effectively, focusing resources on Mexico’s southern border could be strategic.
Canada, meanwhile, has a vast amount of underexploited land, much of it sparsely populated, with approximately 90% of Canadians living within 100 miles of the U.S. border. This land could become more usable as climate change shifts environmental conditions.
If North America united as one bloc, we’d already have a foundation with trade agreements like the USMCA (formerly NAFTA). What else? We’ve been fortunate with nuclear weapons, and we’ve also been fortunate with regard to large-scale wars.
We haven’t had a world war in 79 years. Historically, we saw global conflicts approximately every 50–70 years. Some historians argue that pre-World War I conflicts were “world wars” in the sense that they involved many major powers with widespread impact.
Jacobsen: So, there’s an open question about the future: will major wars become obsolete, or are we simply lucky to have avoided them recently? Can we avoid nuclear exchanges indefinitely?
Rosner: The last and only time nuclear weapons were used in conflict was 79 years ago. Looking further ahead, the future will require many discussions over time frames and scenarios—considering what it might look like if human civilization survives or evolves with advanced technology and possible integrations with artificial intelligence.
Jacobsen: What have we missed about the future? We’ve missed the ways in which technology will change social interactions.
Rosner: So people are trending toward more isolation?
Jacobsen: Yes. And there’s a long-term rise in narcissistic tendencies. So if you have a rise in isolation and narcissistic tendencies, you’re seeing a breakdown of social relations to some degree.
Rosner: Yes, I agree with that.
Jacobsen: People are adapting to these levels of disconnection. They’re projecting a false identity to the world—an idealized version of themselves. That idealized version is better than everyone else, which gets in the way of forming real relationships.
Rosner: You can still hook up. You can bestow your awesomeness on somebody, but only for so long.
Jacobsen: It destroys intimacy.
Rosner: Right. Carole and I—and I’m allowed to say this—we watched our way through an entire season of a dating reality show, which I’ve never done before.
Jacobsen: That sounds like sheer torture.
Rosner: It was, but you can sit there and do other stuff while it’s rolling. But it was also interesting because of who the people were. They took five international superstar soccer players from Europe and brought them to America. These guys are internationally famous, except in America, because we don’t know much about soccer.
These guys are millionaires, famous as hell, and toned because they’re soccer players. They’ve got everything, but the purpose was to see if they could form relationships without telling women they were soccer players. They had to pretend they had regular jobs.
Jacobsen: How did it go?
Rosner: They put them up in a nice place. Eventually, they moved a bunch of women in for an extended dating, courtship, hooking-up deal. Each guy kind of got to pick at least one woman, maybe two, and they got to see if they clicked with each other. A lot of them did. At some point, toward the end, they got to tell the women, “Oh, and by the way, I’m also a millionaire, famous, and a great athlete.” Right? So how many of the couples do you think stayed intact? After they told them they were famous and rich?
Jacobsen: More than average?
Rosner: Zero.
Jacobsen: Really?
Rosner: So even with the advantage of being rich, famous, handsome, and often charming, in some cases, the guys decided they couldn’t trust the women—maybe one or two cases. But in a lot of cases, the women were like, “Well, no.” That’s crazy to me because these were people they got along with, yes, for the most part.
Now, one of the five was a retired soccer player who’d been notorious for being kind of a jerk during his career. That one, you could see falling apart because the woman moved with him back to England or Spain or wherever they were living, and as she found out more about this guy, she had legitimate concerns that he wouldn’t be able to stay on his best behavior for the duration of a marriage. But the other ones, you look at the guy—he has all these social advantages, and yet he’s still not good enough for you to even try an extended relationship with, which speaks to, I think, what you were talking about earlier.
I’m not saying anything negative about these individual women; everyone on the show seemed pretty reasonable within the context of modern behavior. But it does show that modern behavior makes it hard to compromise your “awesomeness” in a relationship.
Jacobsen: That is true.
Rosner: There used to be a big difference between people in New York and people in LA. In New York, you’re walking, interacting with people. In LA, you’re in a car, so you’re not interacting face-to-face. I’ve always thought East Coast people had better social skills.
Now, nobody is interacting face-to-face. Violent crime in the U.S. is down 50% since the nineties, and a lot of that is because it’s hard to commit street crime when nobody is on the street. So yes, I do think technology is putting us in our own spaces, to the detriment of social skills and relationships. The end.
Rosner: The end.
Jacobsen: That’s just chapter one of what’s going to be different about the future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I’ve got another topic. Here’s another topic: It’s healthy to embrace your negative emotions, but not to indulge them. It’s a subtle distinction, but important for mental health—especially for men in North America, who often deal with shame, guilt, sadness, and fear. Those emotions are healthy to acknowledge and experience, but not to dwell on, so you can live a more balanced emotional life. It can help prevent men from relying on titles and achievements as a way to cope with insecurities.
Rick Rosner: Yes, I don’t disagree with you.
I’m always willing to tell on myself because, yes, I get mileage out of it. That includes being clear and, within reason, honest about my emotions. I can talk about my shortcomings, like saying my dick is noodly—that’s not an emotion, but it’s still part of the picture. Anyway, I’ve gotten mileage out of admitting my flaws, even on shows like Kimmel.
I wouldn’t get any mileage out of sadness. Unless, it’s the consequence of some idiotic thing I did that I could later get mileage out of. But also, I’ve been to, what, seven therapists in my life? Six or seven.
Jacobsen: What have been the biggest lessons from that, emotionally?
Rosner: Well, if I’m going to write about myself or anyone else, the lesson is that you’re going to be a better writer if you’re transparent with yourself. You’ll get more ideas about what characters can do if you’re familiar with your own range of emotions. That’s a general lesson in terms of being a writer.
Another lesson, specific to me, is that I’m lucky not to have a depressive personality. I’ll get sad or depressed in specific circumstances, but my default personality isn’t depressed. That’s a blessing. And one thing I’ve known about myself for a long time is that I can always turn to either taking a nap or, well, trying to jerk off.
The ratio has shifted to more nap time than before. Those are my lessons.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have a question. So, I used to—if I can pull it up here—where was it? I asked. When I used to do janitorial work at the pub and the bistro, I would play a lot of Dua Lipa, and I would dance a lot.
Rick Rosner: Was that because you were tired and trying to stay awake? That was probably a coping mechanism.
Jacobsen: Yes, I was overworked at the time. I was also taking the time to really enjoy the janitorial work because it wasn’t overly complicated, but it was honest work, and I enjoyed doing it.
When I was cleaning the stalls, I would play music—what’s her name?
Rosner: So yes, I also had a job that was pretty ridiculous. This was at a bar called Studebaker’s in Albuquerque in 1986. Do you want to hear the not-so-great story?
Jacobsen: Yes, I do.
Rosner: So, I was 26.
I was back in school because I was juggling too much. I went to school during the day and worked at two bars at night. By then, I had stopped delivering singing telegrams. I was probably doing some art modeling, but I had a lot of jobs. I was also tutoring a kid, so I was often tired. Studebaker’s was a themed bar.
They played hits from the fifties, and people dressed in that style. It had a fifties theme, which meant it appealed to older men. Women could come in at age 21, but they didn’t allow men under 25. Periodically throughout the night, the staff, who were dressed as cheerleaders, would get up on the bar or counters and dance. But I was out front, trying to stay awake, feeling sleepy.
Sometimes, I would dance too. Mostly to “Cotton Eye Joe,” shuffling my cowboy-booted feet back and forth. I don’t think they appreciated that. I worked there for a couple of months before finding out I’d been fired because I hadn’t shown up for a shift.
Yet, I had seen the schedule, and it didn’t have me working that shift. What they did, to make it easier to get rid of me, was change the schedule after I had already checked it. I only worked a couple of days a week, so I would have checked the schedule once and then known when my next day was. But they decided to change it after I’d already seen it. Or maybe I honestly missed the shift, but I think it was more about them trying to get rid of me.
So yes, that’s how it went. There were other bars, but this was the only one where they seemed annoyed that I might do things like that.
Jacobsen: You can do whatever you want after hours while doing janitorial work because it’s after hours. You can do it while cleaning stalls because no one cares. Also, everyone at the horse farm thought I was gay. At least, that’s what the barn manager joked.
Rosner: Well, that can be a good thing. Why did they think you were gay, aside from the fact that you’re well put together, clean, and not always making crude jokes?
Jacobsen: I was well-behaved for the most part and flamboyant. Also, one of them told me it was because of my Arc’teryx vest.
Rosner: The what?
Jacobsen: It’s the Arc’teryx vest.
Rosner: That’s a certain brand of vest?
Jacobsen: A high-end Vancouver vest, named after Archaeopteryx. They shortened it to the Arc’teryx brand.
Rosner: So, why flamboyant? What was flamboyant? Are you being sarcastic?
Jacobsen: No. I was very comfortable.
Rosner: When I became comfortable as a bouncer, sometimes I would act gay because I felt more comfortable in the presence of women, especially comedic women. I find them frustrating at times, but I’m generally more comfortable around them than men. So after gaining some experience as a bouncer, I would adopt various personalities to show my contempt for certain customers.
I would sometimes use a western accent, which let the customers know I probably wasn’t going to be helpful. But it wasn’t a sweet, salt-of-the-earth Dolly Parton accent. It was more of a hostile hick accent. Also, I would act gay sometimes because, at that point, I felt tough enough as a bouncer that it didn’t matter, and I didn’t care what people thought.
This was mostly to amuse myself before I got into spotting fake IDs, which became my obsession and probably precluded the use of accents. I stopped acting gay, but I would still do the hick accent anytime someone asked for a favor I couldn’t grant.
But yes, in the other bars I worked at, they didn’t care how you acted as long as you did your job, more or less. In a few places, I even wore roller skates because, why not? A) it made me taller, B) it was fun to work on roller skates, and C) I was a terrible fighter. I figured I’d end up on my ass in a brawl anyway, so it didn’t matter if I was wearing skates or not.
Also, in a brawl, as long as you’re on the ground with the person you’re trying to neutralize, it’s acceptable. So there you go.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve got a new game for you. It’s called Trump or Not Trump. It’s a riff on the quote game. I’ll read something, and you tell me if it’s from Trump or not.
Rick Rosner: Sounds fun. Let’s do it.
Quick addendum to the previous conversation—Franklin Graham was with Trump while he was lying. Franklin Graham is the son of Billy Graham, who was 30, 40, 50 years ago, America’s most famous evangelist. He was a spiritual advisor to presidents from both parties, and he seemed a pretty upstanding guy. But his son, Franklin, is a total piece of crap.
His son operates an organization called Samaritan’s Purse. They raise a lot money, and he has a $602,000 salary. Franklin Graham watches over Trump, providing this aura of Christian endorsement to Trump’s nonsense. He adds a veneer of legitimacy for those who want to believe Trump has a spiritual side.
Anyway, back to the game. I’m ready for Trump or Not Trump.
Here’s the first quote: “I’m not big on compromise. I understand compromise. Sometimes compromise is the right answer, but often compromise is the equivalent of defeat, and I don’t like being defeated.”
Is it Trump or not Trump?
Rosner: It sounds coherent, which isn’t recent Trump. I’ll say not Trump.
Jacobsen: Incorrect! It is Trump, from Life Magazine, volume 12, part 3, January 1989.
Rosner: Ah, I was half right—I said it wasn’t recent Trump.
Jacobsen: No, no partial points! You can’t score your own game.
Rosner: Fine, I’ll take a third of a point.
Jacobsen: It’s from 35 years ago!
Jacobsen: One-third point, then. Next quote: “The point is that you can’t be too greedy.”
Rosner: Where are you getting these? But I’m going to say, Trump, given the hypocrisy.
Jacobsen: Correct! One point and a third. It was Trump.
Rosner: That sounds like him—he says one thing and does another.
Jacobsen: Here’s the next one: “It doesn’t matter what the media writes as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
Rosner: That sounds too over-the-top, so that I will say not Trump. If it were him, I would have heard it before.
Jacobsen: Wrong again—it’s Trump, from a 1991 Esquire interview.
Rosner: Wow, are these all going to be Trump quotes?
Jacobsen: No, they’re not all Trump. Here’s another: “The most heinous and cruel crimes in history have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.”
Rosner: That’s not Trump. It sounds like H.L. Mencken but without his usual bite. I’ll guess Upton Sinclair.
Jacobsen: Close, but no—Mahatma Gandhi said that.
Rosner: Ah, Gandhi. I should’ve guessed.
Jacobsen: Next up: “So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not the company I wish to keep.”
Rosner: That doesn’t sound like Trump. I only know a little about the Reform Party. Trump has disputed knowledge of David Duke before, so I’ll say not Trump.
Jacobsen: The Reform Party was founded by Ross Perot in 1995. The quote is, in fact, from Trump, as quoted in The New York Times on February 14, 2000.
Rosner: So you’re hitting me with old Trump quotes! He wasn’t even thatTrump back then.
Jacobsen: I know.
Rosner: He used to talk more coherently, and that’s my excuse! When you throw old quotes at me, they don’t sound like the current Trump, who speaks in word salads. But go ahead.
Jacobsen: All right, here’s the next one: “I don’t care about you. I want your vote.”
Rosner: That sounds like Trump. I’ll go with Trump.
Jacobsen: Correct! Do you want to double your points by guessing the year?
Rosner: It has to be since 2016, right? He announced it in 2015. No, I can’t guess.
Jacobsen: The date was June 10, 2024. Sandals Magazine.
Rosner: Wow. This is a pretty good game—it’s not easy. It still bugs me that no one has done a science project comparing the way Trump used to speak versus how he talks now to see if it’s indicative of mild dementia. It’s something that could be done, but our journalists are so lazy that they haven’t done it.
Jacobsen: Here’s another one: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed it ourselves.”
Rosner: Not Trump.
Jacobsen: Correct! Any idea who said it?
Rosner: It’s not recent, and I’d almost put it in the 19th century. Lincoln?
Jacobsen: You are correct—it is Lincoln and the era.
Rosner: That’s interesting. It sounds like a purely philosophical statement, but it reflects political reality, too. Lincoln was speaking during, or right before, the Civil War when we were tearing ourselves apart. For the next 150 years, we’ve been fortunate enough to be safe from external threats, thanks to geography. If I were producing this show, I’d have these quotes on cards, pre-prepared.
I call copyright on that! There’s another version of this game that could be fun, too—where you read a short story about sexual harassment or assault, and you have to guess whether it’s Weinstein, Cosby, or Trump.
Jacobsen: That’s dark, but it could work. How about this one: “Early in the administration, the education department will be closing. We spend more money on education than any other country, yet we are at the bottom of every list.”
Rosner: Early in the administration? I’m going with Trump, but it could be any number of people.
Jacobsen: You’re right—it’s Trump. He said it on Truth Social in September 2023. One more, and then we’ll move on to something else. “I’m not a politician. I’m not in politics. I’m like a citizen.”
Rosner: Trump, but old— 20 years ago or more.
Jacobsen: Incorrect. That quote is attributed to Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese businessman born May 3, 1946.
Rosner: Ah, I’m still above the halfway mark in this game. That’s better than I thought I’d do.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I vaguely heard about Hurricane Helene. Current reports are 64 dead and millions without power across the Southeast.
Rick Rosner: You’re behind. It’s at least 128 dead now, and there are still tons of people missing. The damage is estimated between $15 billion and $100 billion. Trump showed up at a wrecked building, had his team build a makeshift stage out of the bricks from the knocked-down structure, and stood behind the bricks, accusing Biden and Harris of doing nothing. This was in Georgia. Then the governor of Georgia, who’s a Republican but doesn’t support Trump, said Trump was lying. The governor mentioned that he’s been in constant contact with Biden’s people and that Biden declared a disaster, which helped them secure disaster funds even before the hurricane landed.
Trump says whatever he wants at this point. He has no constraints anymore. His supporters either don’t care, don’t hear about it, don’t believe it, or believe whatever he says.
Jacobsen: How does this “no restraints Trump” differ from Trump a month ago or a year ago?
Rosner: Recently, Trump said he could clean up all crime in the U.S. with “one day of violence” by getting tough. It’s not a plan—it sounds more The Purge or Kristallnacht, according to liberals, including myself. He called Kamala Harris mentally deficient twice, which to me sounds he’s calling her “retarded,” which is way beyond the pale. He’s making stuff up now with even fewer attempts to sound plausible than ever before.
There’s been a lot talk about how, after the last big hurricane hit the South, NorthCaroleina applied for disaster relief funds, but because they had a Democratic governor, Trump only approved 1% of what they asked for. So, instead of $900 million, they got $6.1 million. Remember when he went to Puerto Rico, throwing paper towels into the crowd as if that was helpful?
He also denied FEMA funds to Puerto Rico for years. He accused the government there of being lazy after the island was devastated. The guy’s a piece of shit, but he still has better than a one-third chance of being reelected president.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: My question: Kamala Harris received an F from the NRA. What does that mean to you?
Rick Rosner: Well, the NRA has been established as a gun rights advocacy group. It used to be described as a gun education and safety organization. I’m not sure if that’s 100% what it was a hundred years ago, in the same way that some born-again Christians tell stories about how they were the worst sinners before finding Jesus.
There’s a certain type— when I was in college, there was this guy from the Church of Christ who would go on about what a terrible sinner he was, but he was only 20 years old. He wasn’t old enough to drink, and he’d wear tight disco pants and say things , “I want to look good for Jesus.” He had gerbils named after long biblical figures, and we all knew he wasn’t the bad boy he pretended to be. It was performative. So, the NRA might be a bit that—people say it was pure and all about gun safety a hundred years ago, but I’m not sure it was ever quite as wholesome as people claim.
Jacobsen: So, what’s the NRA now?
Rosner: Now it’s completely corrupt. Wayne LaPierre ran the NRA for over 20 years and was found to have embezzled millions. It’s also been revealed that Russia funnelled millions of dollars to the NRA to support its operations. The NRA, in its current form, is more of a chaos agent, working to promote gun sales, with a lot of its funding coming from gun manufacturers.
Jacobsen: And that F grade for Harris?
Rosner: The F grade means the NRA sees Harris as a threat to their goals. They don’t give low grades to people who support gun control—they give them to people who oppose the gun industry’s interests. That’s what the NRA is all about now, pushing guns like the AR-15, which is based on military rifles like the M16, designed for Vietnam, and the AK-47, developed by the Soviet Union. These were weapons of war capable of fully automatic fire. The civilian versions, the AR-15, are semi-automatic—you have to pull the trigger for each shot—but they were originally built for combat.
Anyway, these were military weapons. There were zero of them in civilian hands until the late ’60s, maybe when some people smuggled them out after their military service. You were supposed to turn them in when you left the army, but I’m sure some folks thought they were cool and figured out how to keep or acquire them later. Since 1970, we’ve gone from zero semi-automatic rifles in civilian hands to around 15 million of them in the U.S. today.
And these are highly effective killing machines. Still, most gun deaths in the U.S. are, first, suicides, and second, handgun deaths— regular pistols. But when it comes to mass shootings, it’s these semi-automatic rifles that are most commonly used. The NRA’s magazine, advertising, and politics have helped to sell these guns.
And they run anywhere from $600 to $3,000, making them a pretty big-ticket item in the world of firearms. They sell nearly a million of them each year in the U.S. alone. Suppose you’re a small gun manufacturer selling. In that case, say, 150,000 rifles a year at $3,000 apiece, that’s hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. So there’s plenty of money for these companies to donate to the NRA, which in turn gives political donations to a bunch of politicians.
And the NRA takes a cut for themselves. They’re completely corrupt. They’re not even the most extreme when it comes to opposing gun control—there are smaller organizations that are crazier—but they don’t have the pull that the NRA has. The NRA was found to be corrupt, and they had to move their headquarters out of New York because they were being prosecuted there. They may have even declared bankruptcy in New York. But they’re bad guys, plain and simple.
They stand in the way of common-sense solutions, biometric trigger locks. We have the technology now to sell guns with a trigger lock that only responds to your fingerprint or a signal from your phone, making the gun safe and accessible only to the owner. It’s great for safety, but nobody is selling these guns. One company tried, and the NRA almost drove them out of business, accusing them of infringing on people’s freedoms.
But it’s not infringing on freedom—offering a safety option. The argument against gun locks and gun safes is the time it takes to access the weapon if your house is under siege. People buy into this fear fantasy that someone is going to storm their home. However, with a biometric gun lock, the gun could be as accessible as any other without needing to be stored in a safe. You can still use it instantly.
But that technology isn’t being used widely. I assume some small companies are selling them aftermarket. Still, the NRA has blocked any major gun manufacturer from offering this option, which is ridiculous. There are about 100 gun deaths a day in the U.S., on average. The U.S. has ten times the murder rate of Spain. So yes, the NRA is a bunch of self-serving, corrupt individuals who exist for their enrichment.
Rosner: What do you think of the NRA?
Jacobsen: If regulation reduces deaths, then regulate. But we’re not even talking about regulation here. We’re talking about giving people the option to lock up their guns while keeping them fully usable in a split second if needed.
Rosner: Look up Maria Butina—she was a Russian spy. A honeypot. She came over to the U.S. pretending to be all about improving U.S.-Russia relations, but she was infiltrating.
Jacobsen: Maria Butina hung out with a ton of Republican legislators and NRA people. She’s super young—28 or so—and pretty. I wouldn’t be surprised if she slept with some of those gross old Republican guys because that was part of her job.
Rosner: Then she hauled back to Russia. I’m not sure if she went to prison in the U.S., but if she did, it wasn’t for long. Now, she’s in the Russian parliament and hailed as a fatherland hero.
Rick Rosner: When you have plates you want to show off, you get those little easels that keep them from being used as actual plates. I bend hangers into easels to support micromosaics that have lost their stands.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did you first get into micromosaics?
Rosner: My wife had one or two pieces that she inherited from her mom, and she thought they were pretty. Carole is particular in a good way—she’s thoughtful about what she likes and doesn’t. When we go out to eat, I’ll eat any old thing, but she’s a lot harder to impress when it comes to food. She’s not a constant critic, but she has a refined taste.
Jacobsen: Has she always been a critic?
Rosner: Not in a bad way, but she used to review movies when she worked at Avon. She’d write little reviews for the Avon newsletter in New York City. That was fun for her, but she’s still quite discerning.
Jacobsen: So, how did you get into micromosaics for her?
Rosner: Around 2017, I started researching the world of micromosaics because I wanted to find something she would unreservedly love. It’s a little niche, and there are probably a couple million of these pieces in people’s homes, with the fancier ones in museums. Most were made between the late 18th century, starting around 1785 and into the 19th century.
A few micromosaics were made in the 18th century, but by the 1820s, they became a full-blown industry in Rome and Venice. Probably dozens of fancy micromosaics were available in boutiques— jewelry stores near the Spanish Steps in Rome. Wealthy young men and women on the Grand Tour of Europe would buy these as souvenirs. By around 1850, hundreds or even thousands of these high-end pieces were being made.
And then you had the cheaper ones for regular tourists, which probably became more common in the late 19th century as the Grand Tour faded—ly wiped out by World War I. But plenty of tourists still didn’t want to spend the equivalent of £200 or £300 on something fancy but would spend £3 on a small brooch with mosaic flowers. World War I didn’t help tourism, of course. While there was some tourism during the fascist era in Italy starting in 1922, World War II pretty much killed the micromosaic industry.
Only a few micromosaics were made after WWII, and the industry never returned. So, we’re looking at about 150 years of production, which isn’t long in the antique world. If you collect something chairs, you’ve got thousands of years of history, but with micromosaics, it’s a century and a half. Still, they cranked out quite a few, especially the cheaper ones.
It’s a pretty constrained field—only a certain range of products like mirrors, picture frames, brooches, and pendants, most of which are framed in pressed brass. There’s also a size limit because brass, often used for the frames, can get heavy. This one I’m holding weighs about 14 ounces, and over time, the weight of the glass deforms the brass, causing it to fall apart. The same goes for wood—it eventually deforms under the weight. You’re limited to smaller pieces unless you’re making something a tabletop out of marble, which would be reinforced. But I can’t afford, nor do I have space for, a $10,000 marble micromosaic tabletop.
So, within those constraints, most of the designs are flowers, which Carole loves.
I like the constraints, and I appreciate the variety within those limitations. That’s what I enjoy in science fiction. I’m meh about a lot of sci-fi because it’s set so far from our actual world—it’s full of lazy imagination without enough guardrails or structure. I prefer near-future science fiction that takes our current world and extrapolates from it but stays within recognizable boundaries.
Clifford Simak’s City or Charles Stross’s Accelerando? Accelerando is a great example. Stross tries to imagine what AI will do to the world over different time scales: 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, and then 1,000 years. Each chapter jumps forward by a factor of ten into the future. It’s a hard job, but he’s one of the few people who can think about the future in a way that doesn’t annoy me.
I enjoy stories that stick largely to reality. You’ve got to figure out how the future evolves from our reality. These mosaics are subject to many limitations. However, they still allow for creativity within those constraints. The end.
Rick Rosner: Now, let us talk about the debate briefly. Tonight was the VP debate between Walz and Vance. I watched the whole thing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Pause. How do you feel emotionally after watching the debate?
Rosner: My time could have been better. They were civil—it was almost soothing.
Jacobsen: Was it closer to a ’90s or early 2000s American debate?
Rosner: Yes, that is what I tweeted—it felt like a throwback, a flashback to pre-Trump times. However, if you look back at debates from that era, they still had zingers and moments of real anger. These guys were trying their best to be civil. Walz was nervous, especially at the beginning, but overall, they were nice to each other. They agreed and sympathized with each other, though they had definite positions.
Toward the end, Walz pressed Vance on whether he would have certified the 2020 election, and Vance could not say that he would have, which was Walz’s best moment of the night. Overall, it was civil. They shook hands and did not seem to hate each other. In doing so, Vance benefitted more because everyone already knows Walz is a great guy. Vance has low approval ratings because many think he is a weird prick.
Yes, going in, the expectations were low for Vance. He has done many debates—whether it is part of his time as a politician or something from college—but people who knew him expected him to be a slicker speaker, and he was. That earned him some points. On the other hand, Waltz points to his sincerity and experience.
According to the CNN post-debate flash poll, Vance won 51 to 49, but it is so close to a tie that I am not sure it will make much difference. The common wisdom, which CNN repeated repeatedly, is that VP debates typically move the needle less in elections. This debate, being so close, remains pretty much the same.
Neither of them made any huge gaffes. Walt had an awkward moment when he botched an answer about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre. Someone fact-checked him and found out he arrived in Hong Kong a month after the massacre. He fumbled and eventually said, “I misspoke,” but it was not a great answer.
He tried to explain it by saying, “I get excited when I talk, and I was there that summer,” but it was not a lot of a gotcha moment. Hardcore MAGA supporters tweeted about how it was a crushing mistake, but it was not. On the other hand, Vance had some baggage with his previous horrible tweets about Trump before he became pro-Trump, but they did not make a big deal out of that.
Honestly, I am glad I watched the debate—it gave me something to do while doing squats and sit-ups. However, CNN kept teasing their flash poll and made me wait an hour to see the results, so they stole an extra hour of my time after the debate.
Overall, it was kind of “meh”—a lukewarm bath. I did not hear much about the debate where I was, so it was not a huge deal. If something astonishing had happened, it could have made waves, but it didn’t.
Someone I follow on Twitter said Trump is the real loser of the debate because you have Harris. Then you have the two guys, and all of them are reasonable and can put sentences together. Vance got away with many misrepresentations—well, lies. They tried to fact-check him once, and he got annoyed because the rules prohibited the moderators from fact-checking. Still, all three candidates did a good job overall. The only one who has consistently sucked in debates, especially in the last two, has been Trump. Even in his debate with Biden—yes, Biden was old and stumbly—but Trump told dozens of lies.
The competence and reasonableness of the other three candidates highlight how out-of-control Trump is. However, nobody else will see it that way except for a couple of people on Twitter. That is the deal.
Rick Rosner: So, you asked about Lenny Bruce. Here’s what I know. He was a character in The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I also saw part of the movie Lenny, which focused more on his sleazier side and his love affair with a stripper. His character in Maisel was more of an upstanding figure, mentoring Midge and helping her navigate the world of stand-up comedy.
He was one of the pioneers in comedy, moving away from generic joke-tellers like Henny Youngman and shifting to talking about personal experiences. As his struggles deepened, he remained witty, but his humour became less about punchlines and more about observations. That style wasn’t widely understood or appreciated in 1962. However, 20 years later, you had people Spalding Gray, a professional storyteller.
It’s similar to what NPR does—or used to do—I don’t listen anymore, but like it’s still going, where people share personal stories. The show has a bird in the title. Anyway, Lenny Bruce was ahead of his time in some ways, but in others, he was an angry guy with substance abuse issues. Still, he was smart, a sharp observer of the world, and would have thrived in modern podcasts. Marc Maron comes to mind as a modern equivalent, though Maron doesn’t have a substance abuse problem. Maron is a comedian who finds things in the world to be sincerely angry about.
When I mentioned Henny Youngman, he’s the guy who goes on stage and says, “Take my wife, please.” It’s standard schtick, but he was good at it. His jokes weren’t personal, however.
Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina discusses the complexities of gender-based violence (GBV), drawing on over 25 years of expertise. He emphasizes a complete method that addresses root causes like patriarchal norms, financial inequality, and institutional gaps. Contreras-Urbina critiques short-term or superficial interventions and advocates for integrating GBV prevention into training, social safety, and peacebuilding, amongst others. He highlights information assortment challenges in battle zones and the moral duties concerned. Notable nation examples embody Australia, Brazil, and Mozambique. The dialog explores what really works to cut back GBV and stresses multi-sectoral, community-driven, and long-term methods for lasting affect.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina is a Senior Social Growth Specialist specializing in gender-based violence (GBV) within the World Financial institution. Contreras-Urbina is a gender specialist with over 25 years of expertise in gender and GBV analysis and programming. Earlier than becoming a member of the World Financial institution, he served because the Director of Analysis on the International Ladies’s Institute at George Washington College, as a Programme Officer at UN Ladies in Mexico and Central America, and as Coordinator of the Gender, Violence, and Rights portfolio on the Worldwide Middle for Analysis on Ladies.
He earned a Ph.D. in Inhabitants and Gender Research from the London College of Hygiene and Tropical Medication, a Grasp’s in Demography from El Colegio de México, and a Bachelor’s in Arithmetic and Actuarial Science from the Nationwide Autonomous College of Mexico. His work focuses on violence in opposition to ladies and women, social norms, males and masculinities, and sexual and reproductive well being. He has contributed to evidence-based methods and analysis on GBV prevention and response worldwide. He’s been in all places.
So, my first query could be this: From an official standpoint, when individuals consider gender-based violence, they may solely be fascinated with bodily violence. Nonetheless, worldwide establishments are likely to take a broader view, which incorporates psychological or emotional violence as properly. How do you outline gender-based violence?
Manuel Contreras-Urbina: We normally comply with the United Nations’ definitions, which outcome from a few years of professional dialogue. We outline gender-based violence as encompassing varied varieties of violence rooted primarily in gender inequality—the place there’s a energy imbalance between women and men.
Usually, the vast majority of these affected are ladies and women. That doesn’t imply different populations are unaffected, however the prevalence amongst ladies and women is especially excessive. There are various kinds of GBV. The most typical is intimate companion violence. Others embody early marriage, feminine genital mutilation, and sexual violence perpetrated by a non-partner.
Inside intimate companion violence, there are a number of kinds: bodily, sexual, psychological, and financial violence. So, there are numerous dimensions to GBV.
And sure, you’re proper. Probably the most acknowledged or seen type of GBV tends to be bodily violence. Persons are extra conscious of that. However the different kinds—psychological, financial, sexual—exist and are deeply impactful.
Generally, the types of violence are usually not even acknowledged by the perpetrators themselves, however they exist—and there are clear definitions for all of them. They’re additionally fairly frequent. For instance, sexual violence continues to be not legally acknowledged in some nations. Nonetheless, we at the moment are seeing increasingly more progressive authorized frameworks that acknowledge all these sorts and types of violence that I discussed.
Jacobsen: What are the important thing classes from world information on gender-based violence and, notably, from funding establishments which have labored to cut back its prevalence? There have to be findings displaying what sorts of packages and investments are efficient—and, alternatively, interventions which may sound good on paper however don’t yield real-world outcomes. So the query is: what works, and what do you assume is usually believed to work however doesn’t?
Contreras-Urbina: Sure, that’s a essential query. There are totally different fashions for what works, and we do have proof about efficient efforts.
Finally, we need to see a discount in violence, and that takes a complete method. That features motion on the coverage stage—similar to establishing authorized frameworks, nationwide motion plans, and protocols—which results in stronger techniques that may tackle GBV. That is particularly essential throughout sectors like well being, training, and justice, the place establishments want the capability to forestall and reply to numerous types of violence.
These frameworks ought to then translate into programmatic actions—providers and packages that present assist to survivors and work on prevention. Which may embody complete survivor providers in well being and training or authorized assist. Past providers, establishments—usually in collaboration with civil society—have to implement prevention interventions. So, what sorts of interventions stop violence?
They normally tackle the foundation causes, particularly, the transformation of patriarchal gender norms. These long-term efforts create a extra gender-equal setting on the neighborhood stage. They contain work on ladies’s financial empowerment, management growth, and the redistribution of unpaid care work. In addition they embody neighborhood consciousness and training on gender equality and rights. That works—however it takes time. These interventions are long-term by nature.
And what doesn’t work? Quick-term, remoted efforts typically don’t work. Working a marketing campaign with out linking it to broader systemic change is ineffective. Likewise, packages that contain transient or one-time classes—speaking to individuals two or thrice and anticipating long-term affect—don’t work.
Additionally, interventions that solely give attention to perpetrators with out addressing the broader social and structural context have restricted or no affect. Prevention must be holistic, sustained, and rooted in reworking energy dynamics and social norms.
So, it isn’t that these interventions are fully ineffective—it’s that remoted or superficial efforts have a tendency to not work. What does work is a complete method. On the programmatic stage, the main focus have to be on addressing the foundation causes of violence, notably dangerous gender norms. Equally essential is fostering a neighborhood tradition that doesn’t view violence as a suitable strategy to resolve battle.
One key space is violence in opposition to kids, particularly using violence as a technique of self-discipline. That normalizes violence and creates a tradition the place it turns into a suitable software for management or punishment. We have now seen that optimistic parenting packages—which discourage using violence in opposition to kids—can have a significant affect, together with reductions in intimate companion violence afterward.
We additionally acknowledge that in lots of contexts—although not completely—poverty can exacerbate violence. Whereas poverty doesn’t trigger GBV immediately, it will possibly intensify current stresses and danger elements, notably the place households face displacement, migration, overcrowded housing, or extended unemployment.
One other efficient technique is integrating gender-sensitive approaches into social safety packages. For instance, money transfers directed at ladies can empower them economically and assist create extra steady and equitable family environments.
Lastly, one of many most important approaches we at the moment are emphasizing is integrating all these efficient fashions into the training system. Colleges needs to be secure areas for kids and environments the place they study gender equality—the place academics, college students, and the broader faculty neighborhood obtain training about equality between women and men and about nonviolence.
We’re working towards embedding these values into curricula and training insurance policies, not as non-compulsory content material however as a core a part of delivering training. I consider this is without doubt one of the most promising long-term methods to cut back violence and form a unique, extra equal society.
Jacobsen: We’re additionally dwelling in a time of quite a few ongoing conflicts—Russia-Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel-Palestine, and others. How do you method the evaluation of GBV within the context of battle zones? And what are among the moral challenges that come up in that work?
Contreras-Urbina: That could be a crucial query. We already know from world proof that violence will increase considerably in battle and humanitarian settings—throughout all types of GBV.
Probably the most rapid instance that involves thoughts is sexual violence perpetrated by combatants or armed actors. However it isn’t restricted to that. All varieties of GBV have a tendency to extend in battle—intimate companion violence, for instance, usually worsens in periods of displacement or extended instability.
Amassing information in these contexts is extremely difficult. Conflicts are likely to unfold in phases, and every section presents totally different dangers and moral issues. Conducting analysis ethically means at all times guaranteeing confidentiality, knowledgeable consent, and do-no-harm rules. The security of respondents and researchers is paramount.
There may be additionally the problem of underreporting as a result of stigma, worry, and the collapse of formal assist techniques. So, even the place we do have information, we should interpret it cautiously and at all times prioritize survivors’ wants and company.
There may be usually an acute section of battle, adopted by a medium section after which a peacebuilding or state-building section. Within the first two phases, information assortment may be very tough as a result of safety dangers and instability.
Nonetheless, organizations like UNHCR and others are sometimes current within the subject and accumulate info via incident reporting mechanisms. These are based mostly on circumstances reported by people to service suppliers or subject groups, and whereas they don’t present prevalence information, they assist us perceive the varieties of violence occurring and the place assist is most wanted.
Extra correct and ethically collected information is usually potential in refugee or displacement camps, the place situations are extra steady. Standardized methodologies will be utilized to collect info responsibly in these settings.
There may be now a well-developed subject of methodology targeted on gathering GBV information in battle and humanitarian settings. Pointers like these from the World Well being Group and UNFPA present moral frameworks emphasizing confidentiality, knowledgeable consent, and survivor security. When these protocols are adopted, significant information will be gathered, even in very difficult contexts.
Then, within the post-conflict or peacebuilding section, researchers usually conduct retrospective surveys with communities in additional steady areas. These surveys ask people to replicate on their experiences in the course of the battle, its rapid aftermath, and the restoration interval. From this, we will hint trajectories and developments—how violence modified over time and the way interventions may need affected outcomes.
What we all know for sure is that GBV will increase throughout battle. And simply as critically, failing to handle GBV throughout peacebuilding and state-building creates a cycle that enables violence—not simply gender-based violence however broader types of violence—to persist. So, it’s important to handle GBV as an integral a part of peace processes if we’re severe about ending cycles of violence.
Jacobsen: Talking from the UN context, Which member states have been really outstanding of their capability to fight gender-based violence comprehensively? Particularly, which have utilized the packages and techniques you advocate—realistically, at scale—and proven progress over the medium to long run?
Contreras-Urbina: A number of nations have made robust efforts. After all, it is a complicated situation, and progress will be difficult and uneven.
If we start with high-income nations, the Nordic nations—like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark—have been leaders in advancing this agenda. Canada has additionally been proactive in integrating GBV into its nationwide insurance policies. However I might say Australia is a very good instance. Australia has taken a complete method, with robust authorities consciousness, funding, and efforts to contain a variety of actors—throughout sectors and communities. It stands out as a mannequin on this regard.
After we take a look at center—and low-income nations, many have made essential efforts. These could not at all times lead to a direct discount in violence, however that doesn’t imply they’re ineffective. Many of those nations have developed stable authorized frameworks and nationwide motion plans and have made substantial investments in prevention and response infrastructure.
Brazil is an efficient instance in Latin America. It has taken main steps via laws and programming to handle GBV.
In Africa, one instance—based mostly on work we’ve supported via the World Financial institution and in coordination with different organizations—is Mozambique. The nation has invested considerably in GBV response techniques.
India has taken essential steps in Asia, although the nation’s scale and complexity could make nationwide coordination a problem. Civil society can also be driving a lot of the progress there.
In Jap Europe, Uzbekistan stands out for having developed strong insurance policies to fight gender-based violence lately.
That mentioned, it isn’t that different nations are doing nothing. Most nations are taking motion in some type. The fact is that this requires a multi-stakeholder effort. It isn’t solely the federal government—it should contain civil society, native leaders, establishments, and communities working collectively.
Jacobsen: Any last ideas based mostly on at the moment’s dialog?
Contreras-Urbina: No, simply to say thanks. These had been wonderful questions.
Jacobsen: Manuel, thanks very a lot on your time at the moment and for sharing your experience. I really admire it.
Contreras-Urbina: Thanks. Superb questions—that’s what we’re right here for.
Dr. Marouane Temimi, an Affiliate Professor at Stevens Institute of Expertise, focuses on hydrometeorology, distant sensing, and water useful resource administration. He discusses water shortage within the MENA area, emphasizing local weather change, inhabitants progress, and poor governance as key components. He highlights desalination, cloud seeding, and aquifer recharge as options, significantly within the UAE. Addressing regional conflicts, he cites the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam as a serious dispute affecting Egypt and Sudan. He suggests North America may enhance water infrastructure by redistributing assets to drought-prone areas. Coverage and engineering improvements are important for world water sustainability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So at present, we’re right here with Dr. Marouane Temimi.
He’s an Affiliate Professor within the Division of Civil, Environmental, and Ocean Engineering at Stevens Institute of Expertise. I’ve performed a minimum of one interview with somebody from that institute earlier than. Dr. Temimi leads the Coastal Environmental Sensing and Modeling Lab and focuses on hydrometeorology, distant sensing, and numerical modeling, with a concentrate on pure hazards and water useful resource administration.
Dr. Temimi earned his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the College of Quebec in February 2006. He beforehand labored on the Masdar Institute (a collaboration with MIT) and NOAA-CREST on the Metropolis College of New York.
A recipient of the U.S. Nationwide Academy of Sciences Fellowship, he’s additionally a member of AGU and AWRA. Thanks very a lot for becoming a member of me at present. I recognize it.
Dr. Marouane Temimi: Thanks. I’m joyful to be right here.
Jacobsen: First query: How have anthropogenic local weather change and inhabitants progress worsened water shortage within the Center East and Africa?
Temimi: There are a number of components at play in relation to water shortage within the Center East and North Africa (MENA) area. One of many main drivers is inhabitants progress, which will increase demand for water. Many elements of the MENA area already expertise excessive water stress, which means demand far exceeds accessible provide. As populations develop, this stress intensifies, particularly in city facilities and agricultural zones. In contrast to another areas that profit from renewable freshwater sources, many nations in MENA depend on non-renewable groundwater from deep aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted quicker than they’ll naturally recharge, making water shortage a rising disaster.
Local weather change has additionally worsened this drawback. Rising world temperatures result in elevated evaporation charges, lowering the general availability of floor water in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. Moreover, altering precipitation patterns imply that some areas obtain much less rainfall, whereas others expertise excessive flooding that may harm infrastructure and pollute present water sources. In arid areas like North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, local weather change has made droughts extra frequent and extreme. This not solely reduces accessible freshwater but in addition disrupts agriculture, meals safety, and livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of individuals.
One other main problem is air pollution and water high quality deterioration. As industries and concrete populations increase, so does wastewater discharge into lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. Within the Gulf area, desalination performs an important position in offering freshwater, however this course of has unfavorable environmental impacts. Desalination crops extract seawater and take away the salt, however additionally they discharge extremely concentrated brine again into the ocean. This will increase seawater salinity, making future desalination harder and expensive. In areas the place evaporation charges are already excessive—such because the Persian Gulf—this cycle of rising salinity creates long-term sustainability challenges for water administration.
Past pure components, there are additionally coverage and governance challenges. Many MENA nations depend on outdated water administration methods that don’t account for the truth of local weather change and speedy urbanization. Some areas nonetheless prioritize water-intensive agriculture, rising crops that require giant quantities of irrigation regardless of water shortage. There’s additionally an absence of coordination on transboundary water assets, which means nations that share rivers or underground aquifers wrestle to agree on sustainable utilization. Political conflicts within the area have additional strained water infrastructure, making it tougher for governments to implement long-term options.
In the end, the mixture of inhabitants progress, local weather change, air pollution, poor water governance, and regional conflicts has made water shortage probably the most urgent points within the Center East and North Africa. To handle these challenges, nations within the area should put money into sustainable water administration options, together with water recycling, improved irrigation effectivity, higher governance, and regional cooperation. With out instant motion, the area faces a rising water disaster that can impression not solely consuming water provides but in addition agriculture, vitality manufacturing, and financial stability.
So it’s a vicious cycle that we get caught in.
Jacobsen: What about components like elevated rainfall variability? With local weather change results, we’re seeing localized climate occasions that fluctuate dramatically from season to season. As an illustration, one yr, there could also be heavy rainfall, and the following, extended dry spells.
Temimi: Within the first a part of my reply, I centered on anthropogenic components—issues that people are inflicting, which, in flip, put extra stress on water assets. Nonetheless, as you talked about, there are additionally pure local weather components—particularly shifts in rainfall distribution—that have an effect on water availability within the MENA area.
One key difficulty is that local weather change is making excessive climate occasions extra frequent. For instance, within the UAE, 2024 noticed an distinctive rainfall occasion. This was just a few years after one other main occasion in 2016. On condition that the UAE’s annual precipitation averages round 100 millimeters, receiving multiples of that quantity in only a few hours is extremely important.
What we’re observing isn’t essentially a rise in total annual rainfall however quite an increase within the frequency and depth of maximum rainfall occasions. Which means that whereas some years expertise torrential downpours, they’re typically adopted by lengthy durations of drought. This sample is a part of the broader local weather shift—the place the very best percentile of uncommon climate occasions is rising.
Jacobsen: Let’s go into desalination, which is usually talked about as an answer to water shortage. Once we speak about industrial-scale desalination, what precisely does the method contain?
Temimi: In lots of nations inside the Gulf area, desalination gives practically 90% of freshwater for the inhabitants. This implies it’s being performed at an unprecedented scale. To fulfill such a excessive demand, large-scale desalination crops function repeatedly.
The method begins with seawater intakes, that are positioned deep within the ocean to attenuate points like turbidity and air pollution. The seawater is then pumped by way of high-pressure membranes, a course of often called reverse osmosis. These membranes filter out salts and impurities, permitting freshwater to emerge on the opposite aspect. After that, the water undergoes extra therapy to remineralize it, guaranteeing it’s secure for consumption.
To handle vitality consumption considerations, some Gulf nations at the moment are experimenting with solar-powered desalination. Within the UAE, as an example, photo voltaic vitality is getting used to energy desalination crops, making the method extra sustainable. For the reason that area has ample daylight and a limiteless provide of seawater, this strategy considerably reduces the carbon footprint of desalination.
Moreover, some nations retailer extra desalinated water in underground aquifers for long-term use. That is a part of their strategic water reserves, guaranteeing a backup provide throughout drought durations or water emergencies.
Jacobsen: How a lot vitality does it take to supply freshwater for 90% of a rustic’s inhabitants by way of desalination? Additionally, what’s the price per liter or per gallon for this course of?
Temimi: The vitality requirement for desalination varies relying on the know-how used. Conventional thermal desalination (which boils seawater to separate salt) is extraordinarily energy-intensive, requiring 10–15 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter of water. In distinction, reverse osmosis—which is now the dominant methodology—makes use of round 3–4 kWh per cubic meter.
To place that in perspective, a big desalination plant can eat lots of of megawatts of electrical energy day by day. In Saudi Arabia, the place desalination is a serious water supply, the vitality used for desalination accounts for about 20% of whole electrical energy consumption.
As for price, the value of desalinated water depends upon vitality prices, plant effectivity, and placement. As renewable vitality (resembling solar energy) turns into extra widespread, we count on desalination prices to lower, making it extra sustainable in the long term.
To be trustworthy, Scott, I don’t have the precise quantity, so I don’t wish to speculate. However I do know that desalination is expensive. Nonetheless, within the MENA area, particularly within the Center East, many nations have an abundance of oil and fuel, so vitality prices are comparatively low.
As well as, some nations, significantly the UAE, are diversifying their vitality sources. I point out the UAE steadily as a result of I labored there for a couple of years, so I’m accustomed to a number of the particulars. Apart from oil and fuel, additionally they make investments closely in photo voltaic vitality—utilizing concentrated solar energy (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) know-how—in addition to nuclear vitality. The Barakah Nuclear Plant, as an example, generates important energy, a few of which might assist the desalination crops and ease the vitality burden.
One other issue that impacts desalination prices is authorities subsidies. In lots of Gulf nations, the price of water is partially or totally sponsored, making it extra reasonably priced for customers. Nonetheless, the true price of desalination is far increased when contemplating the vitality enter, infrastructure, and upkeep.
Moreover, the geography of water distribution will increase prices. Desalination crops are sometimes positioned on the coast, on the lowest elevation, since they depend on seawater consumption. Nonetheless, many of the water demand is inland, at increased elevations, which means the water should be pumped over lengthy distances. This provides a major vitality price to the general course of, along with the desalination prices themselves.
Jacobsen: What are the implications of over-extracting groundwater?
Temimi: The instant consequence of groundwater over-extraction is land subsidence, which occurs when aquifers lose an excessive amount of water too rapidly. It is a drawback not simply within the MENA area but in addition in locations like California, the place extreme groundwater pumping has brought on complete areas to sink.
Land subsidence happens as a result of groundwater helps assist the burden of the soil. When that water is eliminated, the land above it collapses, resulting in sinking terrain, cracked foundations, and infrastructure harm. In some circumstances, it could actually additionally result in the formation of sinkholes, although subsidence is the extra frequent difficulty.
One other main drawback is that almost all aquifers within the MENA area are non-renewable. For instance, in North Africa, there’s a large aquifer beneath the Sahara Desert that nations like Libya have tapped into for large-scale water initiatives. A well known instance is the Nice Man-Made River, an enormous synthetic water system that pumps water from deep aquifers in southern Libya to coastal cities.
The issue with initiatives like that is that the water in these deep aquifers has been there for hundreds of thousands of years and doesn’t naturally replenish. If extraction continues on the present price, Libya may deplete these water reserves in simply 50 years. That is an irreversible loss as a result of as soon as the aquifer is emptied, it can’t simply be refilled.
In coastal areas, groundwater over-extraction has one other severe consequence: seawater intrusion. Usually, underground freshwater creates a pure barrier that stops seawater from coming into inland water provides. Nonetheless, when an excessive amount of groundwater is pumped out, seawater seeps in, contaminating freshwater aquifers.
As soon as seawater intrusion happens, reversing the harm is extraordinarily tough. Even when the water desk rises once more because of rainfall, the salts and minerals from the seawater stay within the soil and groundwater. It might take many years and even centuries for the pure stability to be restored. This difficulty has already affected areas in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and elements of South Asia.
Jacobsen: What in regards to the socioeconomic impression? So, not trying on the geotechnical aspect, the quantity of water extracted, or the method of extraction, however quite the way it impacts odd individuals—how does water shortage within the MENA area have an effect on governance and society? In different phrases, how does the management of those nations reply when there may be variability in water provide? Is that this a serious socioeconomic issue?
Temimi: Sure, water shortage is completely a serious socioeconomic difficulty. Many industrial sectors, financial actions, and day by day life requirements rely closely on water assets.
Take Tunisia, for instance. The nation depends considerably on tourism, significantly in the course of the summer time season, when demand is highest. Nonetheless, summer time additionally occurs to be the driest time of the yr. If the nation doesn’t obtain enough rainfall within the fall and spring, individuals already know they’re in for a tough tourism season. This results in water rationing, restrictions, and financial losses for resorts, resorts, and different companies within the hospitality sector.
Past tourism, agriculture is among the many most instantly affected sectors. When water is scarce, it immediately reduces crop yields, which in flip impacts meals safety and export revenues. This turns into a good greater difficulty when exterior components compound the issue. As an illustration, in North Africa, when the battle in Ukraine started, many nations within the area confronted a scarcity of wheat as a result of they’d relied closely on Ukrainian imports. On the identical time, North Africa was additionally experiencing a drought. The mixture of those two crises exacerbated meals shortages, elevated inflation, and triggered public unrest.
So sure, the impression of water shortage goes past simply the setting—it has multi-faceted penalties for politics, economic system, meals safety, and social stability throughout the area.
Jacobsen: What about regulatory modifications? Are there components associated to deregulation or elevated regulation that would assist mitigate the results of water shortage, even when infrastructure is already in place? In different phrases, can governments implement coverage options that make nations extra resilient to fluctuating water availability?
Temimi: When dealing with water shortage—particularly in North Africa and the MENA area—the important thing issue isn’t just coverage, however the situation of present infrastructure. In my view, the best method to mitigate the impression of water shortages is guaranteeing that water infrastructure is dependable and environment friendly.
For instance, a rustic wants:
A sturdy water provide and distribution system that may effectively transport water the place it’s wanted.
Leak-proof pipelines to attenuate water loss because of evaporation or seepage into groundwater.
Dams and reservoirs that seize and retailer as a lot rainfall and runoff as doable.
Sensible water administration techniques that may allocate and distribute water strategically based mostly on want.
One key problem is regional water switch. If a rustic experiences heavy rainfall within the north however drought situations within the south, it will need to have the infrastructure to maneuver water effectively from one area to a different. This is applicable to east-west water distribution as nicely. With out flexibility in shifting water throughout areas, shortages develop into way more extreme.
Insurance policies and laws play a job, however with out the right engineering options, legal guidelines alone can’t repair water shortage. Governments should put money into infrastructure growth and technological developments in water conservation, desalination, and effectivity. In any other case, the impression of regulation will all the time stay restricted.
After which, these insurance policies and laws impression completely different sectors of the economic system, together with agriculture, business, and home water use. Nonetheless, the results fluctuate relying on the nation and area.
Most often, agriculture is the biggest client of water, typically utilizing greater than industrial or home sectors. Nonetheless, in some areas, business can surpass agriculture in water demand, relying on financial actions. Whereas governments can implement insurance policies to manage water use, demand can’t all the time be simply managed.
In my view, good insurance policies alone will not be sufficient—they solely work successfully if the nation has the infrastructure to mitigate water shortages and shortage. With out robust infrastructure, even well-designed water conservation insurance policies could have restricted impression.
Jacobsen: Which nations do you assume are the furthest forward in infrastructure growth and technological adoption? Are there nations that, regardless of local weather change and rainfall variability, are well-prepared for many water shortage eventualities?
Temimi: I’d say the UAE once more.
The UAE is a rustic with little or no precipitation, but it has taken main steps to seize and retailer as a lot rainfall as doable. Along with rainwater harvesting, the nation has developed a cloud seeding program—probably the most superior and operational within the MENA area.
For over a decade, the UAE’s cloud seeding program has deployed plane outfitted with flares to stimulate rainfall when situations are favorable. These pilots and meteorologists actively monitor climate forecasts, and once they detect appropriate cloud formations, they fly out to seed the clouds and improve precipitation. This program isn’t just experimental—it’s totally operational, with devoted groups and assets. In my view, this is likely one of the most forward-looking water administration initiatives within the area.
Past cloud seeding, the UAE has additionally constructed a strategic water distribution community for aquifer recharge. When the nation desalinates extra water than it instantly wants, it pumps the surplus into underground aquifers within the Western area. This gives long-term water storage, guaranteeing reserves can be found throughout future droughts.
One other main infrastructure venture is in Abu Dhabi, the place the nation has constructed a Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Program (STEP). Many main cities worldwide have wastewater therapy crops positioned close to coastal areas. The UAE’s system is designed in order that wastewater flows by gravity towards these therapy crops, the place it’s processed earlier than being discharged into the ocean.
General, the UAE has built-in a mixture of superior applied sciences, sustainable water administration methods, and infrastructure initiatives to cut back dependence on rainfall and safe water provides for the long run. Within the MENA area, they’re among the many most proactive in making ready for future water challenges.
In Abu Dhabi, wastewater follows a gravity-driven system, flowing towards the bottom level. Nonetheless, as soon as it reaches town of Abu Dhabi, the water is directed again into the desert through a big underground tunnel that transports it deep into the inside. On the finish of this technique, there’s a large wastewater therapy plant, the place the water is collected in a deep nicely with high-capacity pumps. These pumps deliver the water again to the floor, the place it undergoes therapy.
As soon as handled, the water is repurposed for large-scale irrigation and afforestation initiatives. This initiative goals to remodel desert landscapes into inexperienced areas, essentially altering land cowl. When you change the land’s shade, it has wide-reaching environmental impacts, together with modifying native local weather situations, lowering mud storms, and enhancing air high quality. This technique is a long-term effort to introduce sustainable greenery right into a area that’s naturally arid.
Jacobsen: What components ought to North People take into account when analyzing water shortage within the MENA area? Some assets which might be scarce in MENA could also be ample in North America, so what are the important thing variations they need to perceive?
Temimi: The fact in North America is totally completely different. Within the MENA area, water is an especially restricted useful resource, however in North America, there may be far larger availability. For instance, the Nice Lakes alone, which straddle Canada and the U.S., comprise sufficient freshwater to maintain generations.
Nonetheless, North America does face challenges that would profit from infrastructure enhancements. Within the U.S., one main difficulty is regional water distribution. Whereas the central U.S. has important water availability, the western U.S.—particularly California, Nevada, and Arizona—steadily experiences droughts. As an alternative of simply constructing extra dams, funding in large-scale water transport infrastructure may very well be a viable resolution.
A comparability with Libya gives an fascinating case examine. Libya’s Nice Man-Made River transports water from deep desert aquifers within the south to northern coastal cities over a 1,000-kilometer distance. The venture contains man-made reservoirs within the desert to manage water movement and break the slope of the channels.
An identical water switch system may very well be thought-about in North America, however at a good bigger scale. Indonesia affords one other instance—there, rainwater from the north is transported by way of a large synthetic canal to the southern areas. Alongside the way in which, this low-salinity rainwater mixes with high-temperature, high-salinity geothermal water, making a pure desalination impact.
These kinds of regional water administration initiatives—whether or not in MENA, Indonesia, or North America—provide revolutionary options that would assist stability water assets between completely different areas.
Jacobsen: In North America, intra-regional points resembling commerce tariffs have important results on manufacturing, useful resource supply techniques, and cross-border infrastructure initiatives. These limitations can impression how assets are distributed throughout Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, making large-scale developments extra complicated.
What are some related intra-regional points within the MENA area? There are extra nations concerned than in North America, however broadly talking, what challenges assist or hinder main infrastructure initiatives that would profit all populations within the area quite than only a single nation?
And whereas we’re at it, go forward and remedy the Israel-Palestine battle for me.
Temimi: Within the MENA area, one main intra-regional water dispute proper now’s the difficulty of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Ethiopia is constructing this large dam on the Blue Nile, which is likely one of the main tributaries of the Nile River. It is a main concern for Sudan and Egypt as a result of it can considerably cut back the quantity of water flowing downstream into these nations.
There’s an intergovernmental committee that features representatives from Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt to debate the impression of the dam, however as soon as GERD is totally operational, it can inevitably have long-term penalties on Egypt’s and Sudan’s water provide. Given how a lot Egypt depends on the Nile for agriculture, consuming water, and financial exercise, this stays a extremely delicate geopolitical difficulty.
On the subject of water, it’s a matter of survival. Even when neighboring nations share a typical tradition, faith, or historic ties, water disputes typically override these connections. For instance, many nations within the MENA area are Arab and Muslim, with related cultural and linguistic backgrounds. However in relation to water safety, nationwide pursuits all the time take priority.
One of many largest challenges is that political borders don’t align with hydrological borders. Many main rivers and aquifers within the MENA area cross a number of nations, resulting in transboundary water disputes. Every nation desires to seize and management as a lot of its water assets as doable, which makes it tough to determine cooperative agreements.
Jacobsen: Good night. Thanks in your time—I recognize it.
Temimi: Certain. Thanks, Scott. It was a pleasure speaking to you.
Mandisa Thomas, president of Black Nonbelievers Inc., discussed the success of BN SeaCon 2024, highlighting its vibrant community, inspiring speakers, and positive attendee feedback. She praised Labadee as a standout port and emphasized the importance of early registration for BN SeaCon 2025. Thomas introduced Revival of Reason 2025, a secular gathering focusing on activism, justice, and community building. It featured speakers like Mubarak Bala and performances from Godless Gospel, the event aims to empower nonbelievers. She stressed the need for continued support, engagement, and optimism in the secular movement, urging participation in upcoming initiatives to strengthen the community.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Mandisa Thomas. She is the president and founder of Black Nonbelievers Inc. She is based in Atlanta, in the United States. It has been a few months since we last talked, and a lot has happened—both in the movement generally and in the work you have been doing. So, first things first, we will start on a high note and try to end on a high note as well. How was BN SeaCon 2024?
Mandisa Thomas: It was fantastic Scott, thank you for asking! We had a complete program featuring Chris Cameron, author of Black Freethinkers, Teddy Reeves, the religion curator at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. We screened the film God Talk, which featured me and other BN members.
We also featured Kristie Puckett, an abolitionist from Charlotte, North Carolina, Candace Gorham and Deana Williams. Deana and Chris are now on the BN board, and we discussed organizational updates and improvements.
All of our cruise conventions are great, but this one, in particular, felt especially inspiring. It fostered strong community building, and attendees truly appreciated that. Many of the attendees expressed excitement about returning.
This was our first time sailing with Royal Caribbean, on the Independence of the Seas, and while it is one of their older ships, it was very state-of-the-art. People liked their accommodations, the food, and the nice conference room. The ship’s onboard activities were great too.
Jacobsen: What was the feedback from participants, and how were the speakers and keynotes received?
Thomas: Oh, wow, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Everyone had a fantastic time, and the overall sentiment was that the experience was enjoyable and rewarding. There were varying opinions on the ship’s features and amenities, but everyone enjoyed the speakers and sessions. We also received rave reviews on the organization of the event itself, which was truly appreciated.
As far as the speakers, many topics were covered, including justice for incarcerated individuals and reproductive health. Chris Cameron talked about his journey from being incarcerated to becoming a professor and an atheist. Alfred “Dragnauct” Mimms discussed how to debate Christian creationists, and Candace Gorham led us with some mindfulness meditation.
We also hosted one of our After Dark sessions, where we unpacked sex and sexuality, especially given the incoming Presidential administration. We always have dinner together in the ship’s main dining room, which leads to great conversations, and some impromptu planning. For example, one night, a group of us went to see the ice skating show that was featured.
Jacobsen: If you had to rank your ports of call, would it be Miami, Labadee, or Falmouth?
Thomas: My number one was Labadee, it was fantastic! At the beginning of the year, people were worried about visiting that port because of the political unrest that arose in Haiti. There was so much going on that people were understandably concerned.
There were some cancellations to Labadee earlier in the year, however, because Labadee is a private port operated by Royal Caribbean. When I tell you it was beautiful, I genuinely mean it. The port provided an opportunity to learn about the history of that part of Haiti and the local people. It is very well maintained; the beaches, landscape, and everything about it was stunning.
I’m glad they kept Labadee as part of the itinerary. By the time we arrived, concerns about the unrest had eased, and it was clear that the port was very safe. It is well-secured and separate from the rest of the island, with the unrest occurring hundreds—if not thousands—of miles away.
Everyone who got off the ship was pleased with Labadee. The experience was breathtaking, and I gave it a five-star rating.
Jacobsen: For those who want to attend in 2025—which is approaching faster than people think—what should they keep in mind about pricing, attendance, and early bird registration?
Thomas: BN SeaCon will return in 2025, and we will sail on the Carnival Horizon. We have sailed on that ship twice before, and it is amazing.
It is always best to make your deposit early. We have had some challenges with the booking link because we are trying to make it easier for those who want to book with double occupancy—whether with partners or family members. There have been a few hiccups, but we have fixed them.
When we send out updates about what to expect for the cruise, we ask attendees to review them carefully. We must also always check the guidelines and regulations of the cruise line and the expectations set by BN. We want everyone to have a wonderful and fulfilling experience and strive to make the event as inclusive and welcoming as possible.
While not everyone will necessarily get along, the experience is so engaging that many attendees form lifelong friendships and connections. It is also important to consider the extra packages. The initial fare includes your cabin and convention registration, but additional expenses—such as Wi-Fi, beverage, and decor packages—should be considered when planning the trip.
It is an undertaking, and the financial aspect should be planned throughout the year. That is why it is always best to book, register, and budget in advance.
One important feature of cruising is that you can pay incrementally, which is how we structure our format. However, it is also essential to understand that there are associated costs for an organization that fundraises and hosts speakers. That being said, it is worth it.
We also strive to make it affordable and prepare attendees as much as possible. No one is ever left without information or support if needed. That is what we try to ensure—an all-inclusive, informative, and supportive experience.
Jacobsen: And one quick final note on that. Over the past several months, the movement has had natural hiccups. Mistakes happen, and personalities play a role, but I want to focus less on personalities and more on community. You spoke about the lifelong friendships people can make through a simple cruise. What is the importance of re-centering our movements on community rather than placing too much emphasis on personalities?
Thomas: I think personalities are a part of community—we cannot escape that. However, communities must incorporate a variety of elements. Focusing on the people, the issues we face, and how we address them together is crucial. And we must be careful not to prop up individuals to a standard of absolute perfection—otherwise, we risk becoming the institutions we criticize.
We would do ourselves a disservice by failing to recognize that, while there are many leaders in this movement, leadership comes with responsibility. While issues should be addressed, we must also be mindful of how we approach them and the severity of each situation.
We must not become unnecessarily punitive, especially toward individuals dedicated to the community and creating positive change. Of course, if someone is not acting in good faith, that is a different discussion. However, we should also uplift those focused on the community’s well-being.
I consider myself a personality to a large extent—people enjoy engaging with me, working with me, and appreciate my overall approach. However, my personality should never overshadow accountability, nor should unrealistic expectations be placed on any individual. We must ensure everyone has the proper support to do the necessary work.
Ultimately, the community should focus on people, resources, and collaboration. If there are strong personalities within said community, their actions should align with their influence, ensuring that their leadership remains rooted in genuine support and commitment to the movement.
Jacobsen: On other eventful, happy news, Revival of Reason 2025 happened before the 2025 cruise. What can you tell us about the Revival of Reason? Why is there a growing need for this kind of conference or event compared to other sociopolitical moments?
Thomas: Yes, the Revival of Reason plays on the idea of a traditional church revival or gathering. Typically, those events involve a weekend of music, food, song, and dance centred around worship and serving the church. However, we created the Revival of Reason, partly because of today’s political landscape.
We are witnessing the effects of Christian nationalism in the current presidential administration in the United States, and that is a significant concern. At the same time, people need to understand that organizations and communities exist where they can stay involved and engaged.
It was also an opportunity for attendees to learn about the work of Black Nonbelievers and our allies—those who support our mission. It was a chance to connect with fellow community members, especially when so many are experiencing despair. We wanted people to know that joy is still possible, that meaningful connections are still out there, and that there is a community advocating for evidence-based practices and solutions rooted in justice.
The event will also provide a space to connect with community creatives, activists, and others. And, of course, we had fun. There was learning, singing, dancing, access to resources, discussions on marginalized groups’ challenges, and strategies for working together as a community. It was a time to emphasize the importance of supporting our organization to uplift those who need us most.
Jacobsen: How are you doing? How are you feeling so far in the new year?
Thomas: It’s always a roller coaster ride, but so far, I’m good.
Jacobsen: Regarding the Revival of Reason speakers, who were they, and what topics didthey be covering?
Thomas: Our keynote speaker will be activist Mubarak Bala, joining us virtually from Nigeria. For those who are not familiar, he was recently freed from prison after being charged and convicted of blasphemy, with his conviction later overturned. He has since been released, and we were fortunate enough to secure him as a speaker.
We had Candace Gorham, Chris Cameron, and Jeremiah Camara. Additionally, the Godless Gospel ensemble performed, featuring myself, Cynthia McDonald—who was a speaker—Nikki G from the Black Religious Trauma Network, and Shelley Segal as one of our performers. Tenzen, a BN member, participated.
We had Crea Santa from the Emory Secular Student Alliance at Emory University. The event featured a Spades tournament, a cookout, a homecoming ball, and a service project.
Jacobsen: What were your hopes regarding attendance, and key takeaways from the event?
Thomas: We realized that the Atlanta area was busy that weekend, with the Atlanta Auto Show taking place simultaneously. However, we were confident people would make time for Revival of Reason because of its importance.
The key takeaway is that Black Nonbelievers is still building back better. We have continued our work and have been improving and refining it with the same—if not more tremendous—enthusiasm and commitment to liberation that we have always championed.
We want people to know that we need support for this vital work. Whether through volunteering, donating, or becoming an official member—which we now actively encourage—we hope people see that our community is still vibrant. Black Nonbelievers is a thriving organization, and it will continue to grow stronger as more people get involved, support one another, and work together.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else we should consider as the year progresses? Legal and political challenges are ahead, but are there more positive things we can look forward to?
Thomas: Absolutely. I encourage people to get involved with their local communities and organizations. If an event resonates with you, please attend and support them, events like the upcoming BNSeaCon and recent the Revival of Reason. And if you cannot attend in person, you can still participate virtually.
It is also important to remember that many are still working on the ground, advocating on our behalf. Do not give up. Even in difficult times, know that there are communities out there to support you. We are all working together, and that is what matters.
Jacobsen: Mandisa, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
The Fahim Dashi Foundation, established in memory of the late Afghan journalist and National Resistance Front spokesperson Fahim Dashty, is a Toronto-based non-profit organization dedicated to supporting press freedom and civil society initiatives. Marwa Dashti highlights Canada’s role and potential in advocating for Afghan rights, urging deeper commitments aligned with its feminist foreign policy. She draws a distinction between reform-driven feminism in the West and resistance-based feminism in Afghanistan. Dashti emphasizes the shared responsibility of men and the global community in challenging the regime. She underscores the urgency of storytelling, the role of historians, and the stark contrast between life in Toronto and life under authoritarian rule.
Scott DouglasJacobsen: From a Canadian, particularly Torontonian, perspective, the Afghan diaspora is significant. Since August 2021, Canada has resettled over 55,000 Afghans through programs for government-affiliated individuals and vulnerable populations. Toronto has the country’s largest Afghan community, with more than 54,000 Afghan Canadians in Ontario as of the 2016 Census. Afghan Women’s Organization and the Afghan Association of Ontario offer key settlement services. Groups like Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan focus on education and human rights. What do you think of this?
Marwa Dashti: The Afghan community in Canada has been very active, and I’m grateful for that. I also recognize that the Canadian government has been supportive—they’ve accepted many refugees and provided platforms for us to advocate for our country.
But there is still more that can be done. As a country that champions a feminist foreign policy, Canada has the capacity—and I believe the responsibility—to do more. Whether it is through sustained diplomatic pressure, increased humanitarian aid, or stronger support for Afghan-led civil society efforts in exile, there is room to grow.
Jacobsen: When you see Afghan women fighting for their rights—whether in exile, in-country, or regionally, such as through the United Nations—how would you compare and contrast that with how women in Canada fight for their rights? In other words, how should people calibrate the level of urgency and fire in their belly that they bring to activism?
Dashti: I’ve said this before, but I will say it again—because it is important.
In Western countries, feminism is primarily about gaining rights within the state’s framework. It is about reforming laws, policies, and institutions that already exist. But in Afghanistan, feminism is about challenging the regime’s existence. It is not reform—it is resistance.
That is an entirely different kind of fight. It comes with unimaginable risks—threats, imprisonment, torture, and even death. And yet, Afghan women are still doing it. They are showing a level of courage that is inspiring and, quite honestly, unprecedented in many parts of the world.
So, when people in countries like Canada fight for their rights, I think it’s essential to maintain perspective. That does not mean their causes are invalid—rather, we must recognize that some people are fighting under open authoritarianism, without legal protections, and with everything at stake.
Jacobsen: Where do you think Canadians believe they have achieved gender parity but have not? And where do they believe they do not have parity, but they actually do? In other words, how do you view miscalibrations in the public understanding of gender equality—where people might be misreading the situation?
Dashti: Honestly, I am not the right person to answer that.
I have not lived in Canada long enough to analyze those aspects properly. Even during my time here, I’ve been deeply focused on countries like Afghanistan and Iran because the urgency is so great.
Unfortunately, I do not feel qualified to assess gender parity trends in Canada in that level of detail.
Jacobsen: What is the role of men in fighting against the regime that has taken over Afghanistan? This is not just a women’s war. It affects everyone. So what is the responsibility and role of Afghan men—and men more broadly?
Dashti: You are absolutely right. This is not just a women’s fight.
Yes, women face a uniquely severe form of oppression in Afghanistan, which is why the world’s attention rightly focuses on them. But men have also been stripped of their rights. Many men are also living in fear, under threat, and suffering.
Let’s be honest: when it comes to the international community, the majority of decision-makers and policymakers are still men.
That means men must also be part of the solution. Whether in positions of power abroad or as allies and advocates within Afghan communities, men must speak up, stand with women, and resist the regime. Change will not happen unless everyone is involved.
So yes, if most of the decision-makers are men, then, of course, their role is going to be very important in shaping the future of Afghanistan. Men must be part of this conversation—not just in Afghanistan, but globally—especially when they are the ones in positions of institutional and political power.
Jacobsen: What organizations or associations have been important in the fight for equality in Afghanistan?
Dashti: Thankfully, many organizations are doing critical work in Afghanistan to support human rights and women’s rights.
One of the most impactful has been Vital Voices. They’ve helped evacuate many at-risk individuals from Afghanistan, including journalists and women leaders.
Several smaller, local organizations are also doing their best under impossible conditions. The Dashti Foundation has consistently worked with the Global Foundation, which has supported us across multiple events and projects.
We also have organizations like Reporters Without Borders, which continue to advocate for press freedom. So, on both ends—internationally and locally—there are groups stepping up to help in any way they can.
Jacobsen: Do you think enough stories are being told about Afghanistan right now?
Dashti: No—not at all.
The cruel reality is that Afghan people do not have a platform to raise their concerns. The international spotlight has moved on. It shifted too quickly to other territories, so we have lost much of the global attention we desperately need.
We do not even have the space to speak about these issues—let alone to choose how we want those stories to be told, in our voices, with our cultural nuances and lived experiences.
Jacobsen: Who else, besides journalists, can help tell these stories? I mean those who can help characterize Afghanistan’s emotional and cultural texture—not just factual reports or survival narratives, but something that captures the colours, sounds, and feelings of living under Taliban rule.
Dashti: Historians will play a major role in the storytelling of this era.
Because the fight in Afghanistan right now is not just about surviving oppression—it is about ensuring that history remembers. It is about making sure the world knows that there were people—women, journalists, students, educators—who resisted.
Some stood up for justice, even when it was taken from them.
Jacobsen: What stands out most about Torontonian life, contrasting your experiences in Pakistan, Albania, or Kabul?
Dashti: Oh—I would say the biggest difference is the Freedom.
Here in Toronto, you feel a sense of stability. You can walk outside without fear, speak your mind, organize, study, and plan a future.
That sense of normalcy, of just being able to live, is something I will never take for granted. Because I know what it feels like to live without it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marwa.
Professor Arie Perliger discusses the evolution of far-right extremism in the U.S., highlighting its ideological diversity, decentralization, and increasing overlap with Christian fundamentalism and misogynistic narratives. He contrasts U.S. and Canadian far-right movements, noting their differing attitudes toward federal authority. Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks about extremist motivations, online platforms, and counterterrorism. Perliger critiques the erosion of democratic principles in counterterrorism policies, citing historical overreaches in Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. He argues that social media platforms, like X and Bluesky, have become echo chambers, limiting discourse. The discussion underscores democracy’s struggle with balancing security and civil liberties.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Professor Arie Perliger, the director of the graduate program in security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a leading expert in counterterrorism and counter-extremism. He previously served as the director of counterterrorism studies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a renowned institution. For over 18 years, Professor Perliger has studied political violence, foreign extremism, and the agencies advising on security policy—such as the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military leadership. His research has been cited in more than 1,300 academic works and has informed policymakers and practitioners. He also contributes to public discourse through major media outlets, including The New York Times, the BBC, and Newsweek—those so-called legacy media outlets.
Given the current atmosphere of disrespect for expertise and for those who possess more than just superficial or Wikipedia-level knowledge, this series on counterterrorism and counter-extremism is both timely and important. Although there are many national differences, there are also many shared concerns. The ethical and social issues at stake are significant. Still, the nuances and facts need to be carefully sorted out.
Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it. How have far-right extremist groups in the U.S. evolved in their tactics and recruitment strategies from 2010 to 2025?
Prof. Arie Perliger: There are several aspects to the changes we have observed in the landscape of far-right extremism in the United States. First, it is important to remember that this is an ideologically diverse landscape. While many assume it is a single, unified white power movement, that is untrue. There are substantial differences between groups. Some focus on promoting anti-government and anti-federal ideologies—concentrating on what they perceive as the tyrannical, oppressive, and intrusive nature of the federal government and its proxies. Their main aim is to protect the American people from what they consider the “big bad” federal government.
On the other hand, there exists an entire ecosystem of white supremacist, xenophobic, and nativist groups. These range from various neo-Nazi, accelerationist skinheads to more traditional KKK chapters spread across the country. In addition, we see groups and movements that blend Christian fundamentalism with far-right ideology—whether they are Christian identity groups promoting white supremacism and anti-Semitism through their unique interpretations of religious texts or pro-life extremist groups that intensify their violent campaigns against the abortion industry using religious rhetoric.
It is important to remember that we are not discussing a single, unified entity. Although there have been instances of collaboration—such as during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 and the events of January 6, 2021, when many different far-right groups came together—on a day-to-day basis, they continue to operate independently and maintain their own distinct online spaces.
The second important thing to acknowledge is that, in the 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s, many far-right groups were structured and hierarchical and had clearly identified leadership. There was also a level of formalization, whether through membership rosters, subscriptions, or other organizational structures.
However, over the last two or three decades, we have seen the gradual disintegration and transformation of the far-right into a host of decentralized communities. Rather than engaging in organized activism, these communities encourage individuals to operate independently and act independently. This shift goes beyond the concept of leaderless resistance, which was promoted in the 1990s by figures like Louis Beam. Instead, it aligns with what we might describe as a direct action philosophy—encouraging local, independent associations to take power into their own hands rather than waiting for orders from a centralized authority.
Environmental movements, which embraced direct action many years ago, have been a key inspiration for this model.
The last point I will make is that we are seeing a convergence of additional ideological motifs into far-right discourse. This includes:
A growing embrace of openly misogynistic extremist narratives has enabled far-right groups to mobilize increasing numbers of young men.
The fusion of American isolationism with perceptions of white supremacy and white exceptionalism.
The adoption of specific economic policies they believe will benefit white people.
In short, these movements are increasingly willing to adopt and integrate new ideological narratives into their broader frameworks.
Jacobsen: There are a lot of American domestic terrorist groups:
The Base
The Seattle Mothman Division
The Aryan Brotherhood
Some factions within the Canadian Armed Forces
The Boogaloo Movement
The Oath Keepers
The Proud Boys
The Three Percenters
Perliger: Let’s put it this way—many of these movements tend to disregard national borders, particularly between Canada and the U.S. For many of them, the same societal and political issues they perceive as problems in the U.S. also manifest in Canada.
There is, I would argue, a cross-pollination between far-right activity in both countries. However, one significant difference is that Canada does not have as strong an anti-federal, anti-government ideology as the American far-right. This is likely due to several factors, including:
The weaker central authority of the Canadian federal government compared to the U.S.
The more dispersed nature of political power in Canada.
The absence of a singular executive figure like a U.S. president makes it harder for far-right groups to coalesce around a narrative of tyranny.
That said, in nearly all other aspects, Canada significantly represents the same far-right groups we see in the U.S.
Jacobsen: If you were to take some of the groups above—anti-terrorist groups, black identity extremists, incels, anarchists, and far-left extremists—what are the common sociological threads among these groups of the perpetually disgruntled?
Perliger: It is crucial to distinguish between all these groups. Extremist misogyny, such as that found in incel subcultures and communities, represents a different type of societal threat and concern. The fact is that, for the most part, incel subcultures do not engage in the kind of violent activism that we see among other extremist groups.
However, we see this among environmental extremist groups, where direct action and open activism are encouraged. These groups often share an ethos similar to far-right groups—challenging the government, provoking government authorities, and attempting to delegitimize federal agencies and their proxies through on-the-ground activism.
For example, you may recall the Cliven Bundy standoff with agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the United States. This conflict arose over grazing rights, as Bundy allowed his cattle to graze on federal lands without paying the required fees. The federal government argued that he needed to pay for grazing the land, which led to a prolonged conflict. Bundy stood his ground, eventually escalating into a standoff reminiscent of Waco.
Similarly, far-left extremist environmental groups often confront federal agencies to promote their eco-ideology. This can take the form of disrupting activities by federal and local agencies, sabotaging initiatives by the energy sector, or interfering with tourism industries that they believe are harming the environment.
While these groups may differ ideologically, we do see some similarities. One major commonality is a profound lack of trust in and animosity toward the central government. Across these movements, there is a shared belief that centralized power is inherently ineffective and dysfunctional and does not represent the interests of the people. Many also believe governments actively seek ways to undermine civil liberties and constitutional rights.
In that sense, these groups have a similar approach to the federal government.
Jacobsen: Speaking of the federal government—this is a two-parter.
The first part: The non-employee employee of DOGE made a gesture twice, moving his hand forward and backward from chest to right-side high in an arc. What is your interpretation of that gesture—both in terms of what it is or is not and symbolically? The second part is more substantive than cultural commentary: Do these groups seek to amplify their visibility by making prominent gestures, and do people interpret those actions as emboldening themselves? The first part is important to get an expert opinion on. Still, the second part is even more important—how these movements interpret such gestures and actions.
Perliger: Yes. What Elon Musk did looks like a Nazi salute. I don’t know if that was his intention—only he knows. But it does look like one, and people’s concerns about it are valid. You cannot be intellectually honest and dismiss that possibility outright.
Figures like Musk—and, on a different level, Donald Trump and others—are so popular on the far right because they are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. They are challenging the traditional sources of power within the federal government. They are perceived as emissaries—individuals who can bring this ideology into government and dismantle those elements of the state that far-right groups view as untrustworthy, overreaching, or disloyal to what they see as constitutional principles.
That is why, when Trump was elected for the first time, the far right was elated. They believed they had finally placed “one of their own” in the White House. If you examine Trump’s policy steps during his first three weeks in office, many were directly linked to cultural and social priorities that resonate deeply with the far-right base. These include:
The dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The rejection of what he labelled “radical gender ideology.”
The aggressive dismantling of certain power bases within the federal government.
The dramatic expansion of harsh immigration policies.
All of these policies align directly with predominant themes in far-right discourse. He knows exactly what he is doing—prioritizing the most visible and polarizing policy issues that will solidify his base among the far right.
Furthermore, the hyper-masculine tone and culture he promotes strongly appeal to groups like the Proud Boys, among others. These groups believe that many of society’s dysfunctions are the result of hostility toward men and the marginalization of traditional masculinity. This narrative fits perfectly into their worldview.
What Trump has done in these first three weeks has been about solidifying his base. I cannot predict what he will do over the next three years and 49 weeks. But for now, everything he does is a source of elation and celebration for the far right. If you examine far-right message boards, forums, and chats, their sentiment is clear—they believe they are “living the dream” right now.
From defunding liberal academic initiatives to enforcing stricter immigration policies, Trump is delivering exactly what they have been hoping for. Whether this approach will resonate beyond the far-right base and appeal to the broader center-right remains uncertain. But within the far-right ecosystem, they see these past three weeks as “Christmas come early.”
Jacobsen: The Proud Boys claim to be all about Christ, yet they ignore the biblical proverb, Pride goeth before a fall. Now, regarding X—formerly known as Twitter. How would you characterize its user base and commentary style?
Perliger: First, we often forget that all the social media platforms we use and form attachments to are private companies. Whether it’s TikTok, Instagram, or Facebook, these platforms are privately owned entities. They can operate however they choose.
So, every time I hear an outcry about how awful X has become, my response is: What exactly do you do when your local supermarket raises its prices? You go to a different supermarket. You go somewhere else. If you need to expose yourself on social media every day, that’s a different issue altogether. Now, regarding X—its algorithm has become awful. It is nearly impossible to find content that interests you.
Beyond that, there are several problems with X. The platform has now become much more of a breeding ground for extremists and radical fringe voices, which are gaining far more visibility than before. For example, Alex Jones has become significantly more prominent on X. Even if you never follow him or express interest in his content, it still finds its way into your feed. So, it’s clear that elements of X’s algorithm have become problematic.
Additionally, there is now virtually zero moderation across the platform regarding problematic content. That being said, I don’t understand why people are so angry about it. No one is forcing anyone to stay on X. Maybe people will find more productive things to do with their time instead of being on the platform.
Finally, I’ve noticed this migration to Bluesky, and that’s fine—I even have a Bluesky account. But honestly, Bluesky is just the same thing on the other side. It’s an endless stream of people on the left patting each other on the back.
So, if X has become an echo chamber for the right, then Bluesky has become an echo chamber for the left. And frankly, both of them are incredibly boring. They lack space for real debate, the exchange of ideas, intellectual challenge, and exposure to new perspectives. Without that, they are just places where people hear their own opinions repeated back to them over and over again. It’s boring.
Jacobsen: How do you balance counterterrorism strategies with democratic values, institutions, and freedom?
Perliger: Scott, we’ve been studying this issue for nearly 60 years and still don’t have a good answer. I think it’s clear that every country—every democracy, more accurately—is constantly trying to find the right balance between maintaining its democratic principles and ensuring its legitimacy on the one hand while, on the other, continuing to provide the most important public good: security and safety.
We all understand that these two objectives are, on some level, contradictory. In democracies, most citizens accept that they need to give up some of their freedoms to ensure reasonable safety and security. For example, we surrender certain privacy rights at airports because we understand these measures ultimately make us safer.
So, it is always about finding the right balance, which is what most countries attempt to do. The main challenge, however—especially in the realm of counterterrorism—is that terrorism is primarily a form of psychological warfare. Because of that, terrorism is most effective when it triggers overreaction, distorts public perception of the threat, or leads to biased decision-making.
As a result, many governments tend to overreact to terrorism, and in doing so, they risk undermining their own political culture and democratic traditions—ultimately benefiting the terrorists themselves. That is the real challenge.
Most countries, especially Western democracies, are grappling with this challenge, and how they respond often depends on political orientation, historical context, and legal traditions.
Take Germany, for example. Due to its history, Germany enforces stricter limits on free speech than other Western nations. This is because free speech was once used to promote extreme ideologies that led to some of the worst crimes in human history. As a result, German law criminalizes possession of Mein Kampf, and even displaying Nazi symbols in certain contexts can lead to imprisonment. Unlike in the U.S., where you might receive a fine for such actions, in Germany, you could end up in jail. These significant restrictions are embedded in the German constitution as a direct response to history.
In contrast, the United States, with its strong emphasis on the First Amendment, does not impose such restrictions. However, the U.S. employs other tactics—particularly through its international reach—to implement undemocratic measures against those it considers threats to national security. For example, as we speak, illegal immigrants are being held in Guantanamo Bay. And let’s not forget about the various black sites that still exist for intelligence and security purposes.
The key takeaway is that every democracy has, at some point, dramatically overreached and violated its core democratic principles.
Take Canada, for example. In October 1970, the Canadian government placed an entire province under martial law. You may remember that Trudeau’s father imposed martial law in Canada. An entire province was placed under martial law, leading to mass arrests and extreme violations of freedom of movement and freedom of association. Yes, I’m talking about millions of people essentially locked down in their homes. Thousands were arrested—all because the government was unable to handle an organization that, at most, consisted of a few hundred members. Yes, I’m referring to the FLQ Crisis of 1970.
Similarly, we can look at what the British did in Northern Ireland—engaging in political assassinations and extreme human rights violations when dealing with the conflict there. No democracy has not, at some point, overreached and violated its fundamental principles in the name of security.
No liberal democracy is immune from the temptation to overreact or overreach. The real test is whether these democracies can learn from their mistakes and recalibrate, ensuring that, for the most part, they maintain their democratic ethos and culture.
Or, to use a more recent example—what exactly did Trudeau do to those truckers? Yes, the government shut down their bank accounts. Even Trudeau himself would likely admit today that this was an overreaction.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arie.
Phil Gurski is the President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting. He worked as a senior strategic analyst at CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) from 2001-2013, specializing in Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization. From 1983 to 2001, he was employed as a senior multilingual analyst at Communications Security Establishment specializing in the Middle East. He also served as senior special advisor in the National Security Directorate at Public Safety Canada from 2013 until he retired from the civil service in May 2015 and as a consultant for the Ontario Provincial Police’s Anti-Terrorism Section (PATS) in 2015. Mr. Gurski has presented on Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization across Canada and around the world. He is the author of “The Threat from Within: Recognizing Al Qaeda-inspired Radicalization and Terrorism in the West” (Rowman and Littlefield) and “Western Foreign Fighters: The Threat to Homeland and International Security” (Rowman and Littlefield). He regularly blogs (Terrorism in Canada and the West – available on his Web site) and tweets on terrorism. Gurski explains how 9/11 changed terrorism, with groups like ISIS encouraging simple, unpredictable attacks. He critiques deradicalization programs, emphasizing the difficulty of proving ideological change. Canada lacks an intelligence culture, failing to prioritize national security. Compared to the U.S., Canada has fewer domestic extremists, yet Islamist extremism remains the dominant threat. Gurski argues that media censorship fails to prevent radicalization, as misinformation spreads rapidly online, fueling fear and misinterpretations of terrorist motivations and threats.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have terrorist acts evolved over the past 150 years, particularly in this so-called fourth phase of terrorism?
Phil Gurski: Each group has its specialty, if you will. The IRA was known for bombings. The FLQ in Quebec also relied heavily on bombings in the 1960s and 1970s. Other groups focused on firearms, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and booby traps.
9/11 was a turning point. Before that, hijackers didn’t intend to fly planes into buildings. During the peak of hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s—by Palestinian groups, Italian groups, and Japanese groups—they would take over a plane, fly it to Cuba, and demand something in return: the release of prisoners, money, political recognition, or even just media attention.
9/11 changed everything. The hijackers had no intention of landing in Cuba. They had no intention of surviving. Their goal was to crash those planes into buildings, killing themselves, the passengers, and everyone on the ground. That was unprecedented.
Interestingly, to my knowledge, we haven’t seen a similar large-scale attack since when planes were deliberately flown into buildings. Instead, groups like ISIS adapted.
ISIS perfected what I call the “Nike form of terrorism”—just do it. You don’t need an AK-47. You don’t need to hijack a plane. Just look around your house. Do you have a machete? A butcher block with a knife in it? Pick one up, go to a store, a synagogue, a mall—anywhere—and start stabbing people while yelling, “Allahu Akbar,” or something similar.
Or get in your car and drive. When did we start seeing vehicles used as weapons in terrorist attacks? We saw it in 2006 when an Al-Qaeda sympathizer drove an SUV into pedestrians at the University of North Carolina. We saw it in 2016 when a terrorist in Nice, France, killed 86 people by driving a truck into a crowd. London. Berlin. Barcelona. It keeps happening.
This is why terrorism has evolved. It has become simpler, easier to carry out, and harder to detect in advance. That’s the challenge security agencies are facing today.
To the best of my knowledge, only Islamist extremists use this kind of tactic. No other groups have adopted it in the same way.
For God’s sake, we even saw a golf club used in 2018 at a Canadian Tire in Scarborough. A woman who was an ISIS wannabe—she got as far as Turkey before being turned back—returned to Canada, put an ISIS bandana around her head, walked into a Canadian Tire, picked up a golf club, and started swinging it at employees.
Who would consider a golf club a weapon of terror? If you’ve seen me golf—it’s ‘a weapon of terror’ in my hands. I can’t golf for shit. But a golf club is not normally seen as a weapon of terrorism.
What ISIS has done is say, “Use whatever you can. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist for this. You don’t need to build an IED.”
Pressure cooker bombs—used in the Boston Marathon attack—can be made by anyone because the instructions are available online. That’s why the couple in Victoria tried to use the same method to attack Canada Day in 2013. Thankfully, they were thwarted by the RCMP. We’ve entered an era where anything can be used as a weapon in an act of terrorism.
Jacobsen: What about cases where former extremists or terrorists leave their groups and begin working on deradicalization efforts? I recently was interviewing the head of a group organized to combat antisemitism. We discussed individuals who have left extremist groups and now help to deradicalize others. How effective are these methodologies? Does having a former extremist bolster the message?
Gurski: I have a very biased view of the national security world. My working assumption—correct or incorrect—is: Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
Deradicalization programs have been the rage for the past 25 years. Most countries have at least one at some level. The basic idea behind them is that, with the help of a mentor, psychologist, social worker, healthcare worker, or religious counsellor, you can get someone to abandon the ideology they held as a terrorist.
Maybe you can. Maybe you can’t.
The problem I—and many others—have identified is that a key distinction is rarely made: deradicalization versus disengagement.
Deradicalization means the individual no longer holds the extremist ideology. They no longer believe in the cause. They won’t advance it and might even advise others against it.
Disengagement simply means they stop engaging in terrorist activities, but it does not necessarily mean they’ve abandoned the ideology.
The difference is critical. Disengagement is observable. If I stop walking to the library every morning, someone can notice that change.
But how do you observe deradicalization?
You can’t. That’s why counterterrorism efforts remain such a difficult challenge.
You take someone’s word for it—unless you’re conducting a polygraph or, my dear Star Trek fan, engaging in mind reading, a Vulcan mind meld, or something similar. You can never determine with absolute certainty that someone has truly deradicalized.
We have seen individuals who disengage and claim to have deradicalized but ultimately re-engage down the road, including here in Canada. I know of a well-known case involving a former member of the Toronto 18.
That was the terrorist plot uncovered in 2006, which I worked on. One of the individuals served his prison sentence and was released. About a year later, he stole his cousin’s passport, changed the photo, and travelled to Somalia to join al-Shabaab. He was later killed in a terrorist attack. He had told the world, “Yes, I’m a good boy now. I don’t believe in that ideology anymore. You can trust me.” Yet, just twelve months later, he died carrying out a terrorist attack.
I appreciate the efforts people are making in the realm of deradicalization. However, having spent years on the front lines of counterterrorism while working for CSIS, I require an extraordinary amount of proof before accepting someone’s claim that they no longer believe in the ideology that led them down that path in the first place. My working assumption is that they still pose a threat.
Jacobsen: In democratic societies, leadership tends to be cyclical—whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or otherwise. How do different political leaderships, depending on the party or leader, alter the country’s stance on these issues?
Socially, some individuals may hold an overly optimistic or even naïve view of the capacity for change in those who commit these acts. In contrast, others adopt a more skeptical perspective regarding the potential for genuine reform.
Gurski: Well, I have bad news for you first. Across political lines, national security has never been a priority in Canada. No political leader discusses it. Nobody cares about it. It’s not a vote-grabber. That’s why you hear nothing about national security.
We are approaching an election in Canada, likely by 2025 at the latest, yet national security is completely absent from the conversation. The discourse is dominated by inflation, housing prices, tuition fees, and healthcare—everything except national security.
Canada lacks what I call an intelligence culture. By that, I mean that people do not understand the value of intelligence, its utility, or why it should be more effectively integrated into policymaking and decision-making. We see this play out in real time with the foreign interference inquiry into China. The final report was released today, confirming what many of us already knew—intelligence was ignored.
Of course, I know it was ignored. We had been providing intelligence for decades, but no one was listening.
Does political leadership matter in this context? I don’t think so. Conventionally, one might expect Conservatives to take a tougher stance on national security issues like counterterrorism, whereas Liberals might be more lenient. However, in Canada, it does not make a difference. That said, this particular iteration of the Liberal government has arguably been the worst in Canadian history regarding national security.
We cannot even discuss Islamist extremism in this country.
It’s seen as a racist term, even though the rest of the world uses it. Yes. We have a government that is so deeply wedded to political correctness that we can’t have honest conversations about threats to national security and public safety.
As you said, governments come and go all the time. We are well overdue for a change.
This government’s best-before date expired long ago, and most Canadians recognize that. I have no idea if the Conservatives would be any better, as the polls seem to suggest. The Harper government wasn’t significantly better at national security than the Trudeau government.
We need a government that understands national security and will allocate the resources and attention it deserves.
Jacobsen: How does the cultural response to terrorism differ between Canada and the United State, extending that commentary into government response, efficacy, and inaction?
Gurski: In my opinion—and in the opinion of many others who have worked in intelligence in Canada—we have a very immature, verging on nonexistent, intelligence culture in this country.
By the way, it wasn’t always this way. During the Second World War, Canada had a robust intelligence culture, particularly within the Canadian military, and it served us well. That has changed for various reasons beyond the scope of this conversation.
The Americans, however, have a very mature intelligence culture. First, they have vastly more resources and personnel, and they take intelligence far more seriously. Intelligence plays a much greater role in decision-making and policymaking in the U.S. than it does here in Canada.
For example, Canada is not equivalent to the CIA. We are one of the few countries without a dedicated foreign intelligence service. CSIS is a domestic security intelligence service, although it can operate outside of Canada for national security. However, it does not collect foreign intelligence, defined as intelligence on the intentions and capabilities of foreign states.
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) can collect foreign intelligence but only signals intelligence—it cannot collect human intelligence. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the FBI, CIA, and NSA (their signals intelligence agency, akin to Canada’s CSE) and 17 other agencies comprise the U.S. intelligence community. We do not have that infrastructure in Canada.
Americans take intelligence and national security much more seriously. Part of that is because the U.S. has long embraced its role as the world’s policeman, particularly since the end of the Second World War. However, we’re seeing some changes under the current administration, and that role may be diminishing—stay tuned.
Another major difference between our two countries is that the U.S. has long had a much more significant problem with both far-right and far-left extremism.
Think of the Weather Underground, a far-left domestic terrorist group that sought to overthrow the government. Think of Antifa—some would argue it qualifies as a terrorist movement when it engages in violent activities. Then there’s the range of neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and white nationalist groups operating in the U.S.
We have some of these groups in Canada, but they exist much less than they do in the United States. They’re not nearly as serious. A good example would be the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys were created by a Canadian and played a role in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
I don’t think they have carried out any acts of violence per se—I could be wrong, but I don’t follow the far right that closely. Canada has a Proud Boys chapter, which the Trudeau government listed as a terrorist entity the day after the U.S. Capitol attack.
The Proud Boys in Canada couldn’t organize a piss-up in a bar if you gave them a hundred-dollar tab. They’re useless. They’re not violent. Do they have views that are un-Canadian—i.e., rude? Yes. But lots of people have rude opinions. That doesn’t mean they have ever acted on them violently.
What I’m saying here is that, whether it’s the far left or the far right, Americans have much more experience with politically motivated violence from both sides of the spectrum than we do in Canada. I would argue that many of the attacks labelled as “far right” here are more accurately classified as hate crimes rather than acts of terrorism, which are distinct under the Canadian Criminal Code.
Take the attack in London, Ontario, in 2021, where a man ran down a Pakistani Muslim family. That was a hate crime. It wasn’t an act of terrorism, as far as I’m concerned, but many have disagreed with me. We’ve already talked about the incel movement before as well.
Those are hate crimes. Misogynistic hate crimes, yes—but not acts of terrorism, as far as I’m concerned. The two countries have very different ways of looking at national security, public safety, intelligence, and the scale of our problems.
Fun fact: When I retired from CSIS in 2015, the agency was on the verge of shutting down its far-right investigations desk because there was nothing to examine. We had spent years analyzing threats nationwide, and no one was worth worrying about.
That has changed. Think of the attack in Quebec City in January 2017. Again, whether it was a hate crime or terrorism is a fine line. But there’s no question that far-right extremism has garnered more attention in the past few years than in the previous twenty-five years here in Canada.
That said, Islamist extremism is still, by far, the dominant form of violent extremism both here in Canada and worldwide. Think of the number of arrests made in the past eight months. We had a father and son in Toronto linked to ISIS. We had a Pakistani student on a visa, apparently attempting to travel to New York to kill Jews.
In the fall, there were arrests in Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton. The list goes on and on. These are all ISIS sympathizers or Islamist extremists. Islamist extremism still dominates both internationally and in Canada—although the government doesn’t want you to know that because discussing it is considered “racist,” which is ludicrous and highly inaccurate.
Jacobsen: What about copycats? One principle in media reporting on suicide, by analogy, is to limit coverage to avoid inspiring copycats. Does this rule hold for terrorist or extremist acts? Are there any principles the media should follow when reporting on these incidents?
Gurski: I’ve got bad news for people who espouse that view.
It’s called the Internet. So if CBC, CTV, Global, Rebel News, or whatever media outlet decides not to report something—and you often hear, “We’re not going to name the person, we don’t want to give them importance. We don’t want to make them sound bigger than they are”—well, sucks to be you, Shirley, because it’s already all over the Internet on multiple platforms, social media included.
So, taking this high-minded stance of “We’re not going to celebrate terrorism by naming the group or the individual”—great, congratulations on that. And a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee at Tim’s. Meanwhile, the entire Internet is already talking about it.
The Internet is a wonderful invention. When I started in intelligence a bazillion years ago, there was no Internet. It’s fantastic for information, and spreading propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation. So this highly moralistic stance of We’re not going to engage—sure, whatever.
It doesn’t matter. The other day, I heard statistics about where Canadians, especially youth, get their news. Guess how many are watching CBC? They found three kids in Gander who still do—that’s about it. Everyone else is getting their information from social media.
So, whatever state broadcasters or outlets like Global News decide to do on principle, it makes little difference.
Jacobsen: Regarding online spaces and the spread of information, disinformation, and misinformation—do intelligence professionals, generally speaking, feel cynical about the public’s ability to parse truth from manipulation in cases like these?
Gurski: I don’t know if I would call it cynicism. There’s just an acceptance that there’s not a lot you can do to stop it. The information is going to get out somehow.
The quickest way to make something popular is to ban it. Think of anything in history that was banned—prohibition in the 1920s made booze much more desirable.
You can’t stop this stuff. But our saving grace, as I mentioned earlier, is that most people engaging with this kind of information—whether disinformation, propaganda, or extremist content—don’t act on it. They’re either cowards or incompetent.
So, yes, you worry about it. It keeps you up at night. But this is important, and I can’t underscore it enough—look at Canadian history. What is the reason we’ve been a country for what now? Coming up on 158 years this July, since 1867.
Using the broadest possible definition of terrorism—including lethal acts where people have died—we’ve had maybe 20 actual terrorist incidents in 158 years.
What does that tell you? First, it tells you that terrorism in Canada is relatively infrequent compared to other types of crime. By contrast, in places like Somalia or Nigeria, you can’t go 158 minutes without a terrorist attack. That’s how rampant it is there.
We are incredibly fortunate in Canada, which is all the more reason not to embellish or overemphasize the issue. This whole war on terrorism concept? What a stupid idea.
That’s been about as successful as the war on drugs. And I wrote an entire book on this in 2019—An End to the War on Terrorism. We need to stop using this terminology. It’s not a useful way to frame things.
Yes, terrorism is real. Yes, it must be dealt with. But it remains a relatively infrequent occurrence. I don’t see anything changing in the immediate future—at least not here in Canada.
I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know what will happen in five minutes, let alone five years from now. But suppose history is any indication of the immediate future. In that case, I don’t see the groundwork being laid or conditions being created that would lead to a massive increase in terrorism anytime soon.
Jacobsen: What about the impacts on regular people? Terms like “white nationalist terrorism” and “Christian white nationalist terrorism” get thrown around. The same happens with “Islamist terrorism,” but these terms are often conflated with broader categories. Many people don’t have a precise definition of what they mean.
How does this overhyped rhetoric impact ordinary communities—whether it’s rural Euro-Canadians or small-town Muslim communities?
Gurski: Right. That’s a great point.
Unfortunately, as of January 2025—and frankly, for about the past ten thousand years—most people are not particularly bright. They don’t understand nuance, and they don’t understand definitions.
When I was with CSIS and Public Safety Canada, we took the time to define our terms carefully. When we talked about Islamist extremism, we explained exactly what it meant. We made it clear that this was distinct from Muslim terrorism or Islamic terrorism. We used Islamism for a reason, and once we explained it, most people appreciated the distinction.
The problem is that we can go to great lengths to use precise terminology and explain what it does and does not mean—but then a media source runs a headline like Muslim terrorism is a problem. And the average idiot in rural Saskatchewan—no offence to Saskatchewaners—sees that headline and concludes, Oh, well, that must mean the local mosque in Regina is responsible. Which, of course, is ridiculous.
Jacobsen: We love Saskatchewan here at A Further Inquiry.
Gurski: But that’s exactly how misinformation spreads. Regardless of our terminology, people will always take it too far and do something stupid.
Let me give you a good example of this. Last year, there was an attack on a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England. A young man, originally from Rwanda but born in Wales to Rwandan refugee parents, took a knife and stabbed 15 little girls, killing three and injuring a dozen more.
The police went out of their way to do two things:
They did not call it an act of terrorism.
They refused to name the suspect.
And they did that for exactly the reasons you just cited. They knew that if they called it terrorism, there would be riots. If it turned out the perpetrator was Muslim, mosques would be firebombed.
But guess what? There were riots in the streets anyway.
Shortly after, I was pinged on X by someone who followed me. They claimed to have the name of the attacker and told me he was a failed Syrian refugee who was pending deportation from the UK.
I wrote back and asked, “Where are you getting this from?” because I’m not seeing it anywhere else. I wanted to corroborate their information before drawing any conclusions. And he wouldn’t get back to me.
As I said, I’m not publishing this. I work in intelligence, and information has to be corroborated from reliable sources. Otherwise, it’s useless. It’s like journalism—you verify your sources. But in the absence of reliable information, people make it up anyway. They drew their conclusion that the attacker was a Muslim kid.
Then, when the news came out that he was Rwandan, that took the wind out of their sails—until six months later when it was revealed that he was Muslim and had an al-Qaeda manual on his laptop. He had also experimented with making ricin.
Yet, the government still did not call it Islamist extremism—which, to me, is ludicrous because it was Islamist extremism. Yes, he was a messed-up kid. Yes, he had a history of violent behaviour. He had been in trouble at school, maybe had PTSD from Rwanda—who knows? There were all kinds of things going on in his head. But there was an Islamist element to what he did. His actions were consistent with jihadist ideology.
So why attack a Taylor Swift-themed dance class? Well, Taylor Swift is seen as a slut who dresses like a slut and sings. The Taliban has banned women from singing in Afghanistan. That tells you everything you need to know about how jihadists view women in music.
There were ideological links, so it didn’t matter whether authorities named them or not—people would react.
If the police don’t release the information, it spreads on social media within minutes. It was false information, but it made the rounds. As a result, mosques were attacked in England and Ireland.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gurski: We need to get better at all of this. We need to get better at trusting our security intelligence agencies. Yes, they could always use more resources—but I’ll give the government credit for funding them. The real issue? They need to take intelligence seriously. Otherwise, they could put a For Sale sign on CSIS.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Phil. Appreciate it.
Gurski: Yep. Stay in touch. If anything else comes up, let me know. Cheers.
Phil Gurski is the President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting. He worked as a senior strategic analyst at CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) from 2001-2013, specializing in Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization. From 1983 to 2001, he was employed as a senior multilingual analyst at Communications Security Establishment specializing in the Middle East. He also served as senior special advisor in the National Security Directorate at Public Safety Canada from 2013 until he retired from the civil service in May 2015 and as a consultant for the Ontario Provincial Police’s Anti-Terrorism Section (PATS) in 2015. Mr. Gurski has presented on Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization across Canada and around the world. He is the author of “The Threat from Within: Recognizing Al Qaeda-inspired Radicalization and Terrorism in the West” (Rowman and Littlefield) and “Western Foreign Fighters: The Threat to Homeland and International Security” (Rowman and Littlefield). He regularly blogs (Terrorism in Canada and the West – available on his Web site) and tweets on terrorism. Gurski critiques efforts to explain away terrorism, highlighting the New Orleans attack, where an ISIS-inspired perpetrator killed 15 and injured 57. He warns against narratives that absolve attackers of responsibility. Comparing lone-wolf attacks to large-scale warfare, he emphasizes their devastating impact. Gurski discusses Canada’s shift in counterterrorism focus from Islamist extremism to the far right, questioning its justification given the lack of foiled plots. He criticizes political correctness for skewing national security priorities and warns that intelligence agencies are being sidelined. He calls for a government that takes intelligence seriously to ensure effective security measures.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In science, explaining something does not mean explaining it away. A phenomenon still exists, but having a framework helps us understand it.
Similarly, in discussing tragic personal stories—understanding a perpetrator’s background does not excuse their actions. They still made a choice.
Phil Gurski: That’s right. And that’s a good segue into the New Orleans attack. That was the attack that happened after midnight in New Orleans—15 people were killed when the perpetrator ran over pedestrians on Bourbon Street, injuring another dozen. He then engaged in a firefight with police and was killed.
In the aftermath, there was a whole narrative about his background—he was a former U.S. military, his marriage had failed, he was in debt, he had personal struggles, blah blah blah.
It was almost as if the media was trying to explain away what he did.
However, that background does not explain why he carried out the attack. He did it because he pledged allegiance to ISIS. And this is what ISIS does.
As I said earlier, it’s the Nike form of terrorism—just do it. Get in your car, drive down the street, and kill people. People are always searching for easy answers to complicated questions.
The old phrase dead men tell no lies is true. But dead men also tell no tales. We can’t ask this guy why he did it. What we can do is analyze his online activity, computer files, and other digital footprints.
We know he did surveillance in New Orleans. He knew where he was going, and he knew there would be crowds at 3 a.m. He knew New Orleans would be packed on New Year’s Eve. That’s a simple formula for most people.
He knew the crowds would be there. He knew it would be an easy target. He scouted the best route to get the truck through—no bollards, no barriers, nothing in his way. But at the end of the day, why did he do it? Who knows? Ask him. You can’t—he’s dead.
I don’t like this effort to explain things away with a narrative of circumstances beyond his control, as if it wasn’t his fault. Yes. It was his fault. He made a choice, as you said. No one put a gun to his head and told him to drive down Bourbon Street. He did it of his own accord.
So, let’s not create backstories that absolve these people of responsibility for their decisions.
Jacobsen: I checked: Fifteen people were killed. Fifty-seven were injured. And of those fifty-seven, five were shot. This reminds me of when I was in Ukraine on my second trip.
I was there just shy of a month. Poltava happened—one of the largest biggest mass killings in a single strike with two explosions there. An education or training facility and then a hospital.
Poltava is south of Sumy and west of Kharkiv. We arrived three or four hours after the attack.
The final numbers: ~58 dead and three hundred seventy were injured.
Gurski: Wow.
Jacobsen: This is modern industrial warfare. Two missiles and those were the numbers.
Now compare that to a single individual without industrial military equipment—just a truck and a gun. With that, he injured 57 people, including five who were shot and killed 15. It’s a perverse form of “achievement.”
Gurski: Yep. Exactly. Which is why ISIS made such a big propaganda push around it.
Jacobsen: And something that isn’t talked about as much but is equally important—
Fifteen dead, plus the 57 injured. That’s 72 people. And then their families. Now, you’re looking at hundreds of people dealing with emotional trauma for a lifetime.
Gurski: Yep. Sandy Hook wasn’t a terrorist attack, but it’s similar in terms of lasting impact. What was it—twenty-two kids died, plus a couple of teachers? Then, the families. And then all the aftershocks, as you alluded to. It’s much, much bigger than just the immediate casualties.
Gurski: Yep.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: How has the government shifted its focus?
Gurski: It’s nice and clean. No worries.
As I noted, I retired from CSIS in 2015 after spending fifteen years working in counterterrorism. At that time, 99.5% of our investigations were focused on Islamist extremism.
We still had a small Sikh terrorism desk—very, very small—and an even smaller far-right desk. I don’t recall if we had a far-left desk at all. The simple reason was that every single plot forwarded to the RCMP for investigation involved jihadists.
Jacobsen: You’re making an important distinction that isn’t usually discussed. People talk about attacks, but you’re talking about plots. So, while attacks may come from different sources, the majority of plots were Islamist.
Gurski: No—all of them were.
And this will tie back in. Let me explain.
Think of the Toronto 18. Think of the Via Rail plot. Think of the Victoria plot. All of these were significant terror plots that, had they been successful, would have killed dozens, if not hundreds.
The Toronto 18 had three tons of fertilizer. Three one-ton trucks. Do the math. That’s not good. I left in 2015. That was after the two attacks—one in Ottawa, the other outside Montreal—that killed two soldiers.
Then we had Aaron Driver in Stratford, Ontario, who was about to get into a taxi with two homemade bombs. He was shot dead by the RCMP. We had the Edmonton attack. The Scarborough attack. The Markham attack.
And that’s not even mentioning the Canadians who left to commit acts of terrorism abroad. I wrote an entire book on this—The Peaceable Kingdom? A History of Terrorism in Canada—which covers Canadians who have been killed overseas. After the election, you started to see a shift—in two ways.
First, the terminology changed.
We could no longer call it “Islamist terrorism.” The government decided to label it “Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism”—or RMVE for short.
This is both inaccurate and an extreme example of political correctness.
Yes, religion is one of the three motivators for terrorism under the Canadian Criminal Code. But to call something religiously motivated, you need to know two things:
That religion was a factor.
What the specific religion was.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t call it religious. Are we talking about Mennonites? Seventh-day Adventists? Presbyterians? No. We’re talking about Islamist extremists. In Canada, they are the only religious group that has carried out planned acts of terrorism.
We know what the religion is. But the government refuses to call it that because it’s politically uncomfortable. They don’t want to “target” an entire community—blah, blah, blah. The second shift happened with resource allocation.
In the decade leading up to 2015, CSIS began shifting resources—publicly, I might add—away from investigating jihadists and toward investigating the far right.
Now, according to CSIS, it’s an even split—50% of resources go to far-right extremism, 50% to Islamist extremism. That’s a massive shift. We went from 0.5% of investigations on the far right to 50%.
And my question is: Was that a justified move? Now, here’s the problem. We talked earlier about foiled plots. From 2000 to 2015, my entire focus at CSIS was on jihadist terrorism. We disrupted four plots and carried out numerous investigations.
If other extremist groups were planning attacks but weren’t being investigated, their chances of success would logically be higher.
Think about it like this: If the police stopped investigating Jamaican street gangs in Toronto tomorrow, what would happen? More gang activity. More shootings. More killings. Now, in my entire 15 years at CSIS—when the far right was not being actively investigated—how many successful far-right terrorist attacks occurred?
None.
How many foiled far-right terrorist plots were there?
None.
And now, you’re telling me that warrants 50% of our investigative resources?
Let me go one step further.
Since around 2017, when the 50/50 split in counterterrorism investigations fully took effect, how many foiled far-right terrorist plots have there been in Canada?
None.
How many successful far-right attacks?
Well, arguably four—although I would classify three of them as hate crimes rather than terrorism. I’m in the minority on that, but that’s my stance.
So, we’ve had four successful attacks but zero foiled plots.
Where are all the foiled plots if the far right is such a serious threat that we’re allocating 50% of resources to it? Where are people on the verge of committing attacks arrested?
When the Toronto 18 was arrested on June 2, 2006—a case I worked on from Day 1—they were unloading three tons of what they thought was ammonium nitrate fertilizer from a storage shed in Toronto. They were loading it into trucks to build bombs to blow up multiple targets.
That’s how close they were.
When the father and son ISIS team was arrested—was it in North York or Scarborough? I forget—last year, the RCMP said they were this close to carrying out an attack.
They had weapons.
They had a strategy.
They had guns.
They had a plan.
Now compare that to the far right—how many far-right attacks in Canada have been foiled to that extent in the past ten years?
Zero.
Which leads me to ask a very simple question: How serious is the far-right terrorist threat if no attacks are being foiled? We have a government that has decided it’s too uncomfortable to talk about Islamist extremism.
We can’t use the term. I’ve been called a racist for using the term Islamist extremism—even though the entire world uses it. Academics use it. Counterterrorism practitioners use it. Governments use it. But we can’t use it in Canada—because it’s “embarrassing.”
If the far right is so dangerous, then why aren’t we seeing more action? I haven’t seen an answer to that question yet. Now, maybe investigations are happening in the background that I don’t have access to—fine. But if serious arrests were happening—if people on the verge of killing others were being caught, and they belonged to neo-Nazi, white supremacist, or white nationalist groups—then show me the evidence.
I read the news every single day. If you have a single example of a foiled far-right terrorist attack in Canada in the past ten years, send it to me—because I haven’t seen it.
Jacobsen: Are you suggesting the government has prioritized investigations based on political sensitivities rather than actual security threats?
Gurski: Yes. The government has decided on the priority—not based on threat assessments but on political sensitivities. This is a problem in a democracy. Security services must be free to investigate real threats based on intelligence and capabilities. The government must not tell them. what to investigate and what not to investigate. That’s what happens in autocracies.
Jacobsen: Has CSIS funding gone down?
Gurski: No—it’s gone up. But here’s the thing.
CSIS has four major investigative priorities under Section 2 of the CSIS Act:
Foreign espionage (spying).
Foreign interference (think China, election meddling, intimidation of diaspora communities).
Terrorism (which includes Islamist extremism and far-right extremism).
Subversion (which CSIS hasn’t actively investigated since the 1980s).
CSIS mostly focuses on counterintelligence (spying), foreign interference, and counterterrorism.
And CSIS has received a lot more money because threats have multiplied.
Just think about China’s activities over the past twenty years:
Illegal police stations in Canada.
Election interference.
Harassment of Uyghur Canadians, Tibetan Canadians, and Chinese dissidents.
Espionage operations against Canadian businesses and universities.
And that’s just China. Now, think about Russia’s operations in Western Europe. You can bet it isn’t good here in Canada—we don’t talk about it enough. China has been stealing technology—take the Level 4 lab in Winnipeg, for example. They sent PLA (People’s Liberation Army) personnel to learn about our virus technology. And let’s be clear—they weren’t doing that to save the planet.
They were doing it to weaponize it. And that was yet another government failure. We warned them, saying, “By the way, these people aren’t who they claim to be.” And the government’s response? Oh no, they’re fine. We’ll clear them. So yes, CSIS has received more resources and funding, but the threats have also multiplied.
In the post-Cold War period, we assumed the Soviet Union—and later, Russia—was no longer a serious threat. Well, that was the wrong conclusion. They are a huge threat. And a growing one. And China has always been a threat—and always will be. So, intelligence agencies now have more issues to deal with than ever before.
Jacobsen: What are the political and social barriers to accurately identifying a terrorist act? You’ve consistently pointed out that if someone labels Islamist terrorism as Islamist terrorism, they risk being branded a racist—even though it’s an academic term referring to an ideology, not an ethnic group.
Gurski: I’d say this government has been brilliant at political correctness and wokeism—and as a result, they’ve skewed the dialogue. And it is having an effect. I know it’s affecting morale within law enforcement and security intelligence agencies. Because they’re being told what to do—and, more importantly, what not to do.
These agencies are not being allowed to set their priorities. Intelligence exists to inform the government. CSIS is an advisory organization with no power to arrest or prosecute anyone. CSIS investigates. CSIS reports its findings up the chain. CSIS shares minimal intelligence with the RCMP due to Canada’s intelligence-to-evidence restrictions. CSIS tells the government: This is what we see. This is what worries us. That’s the role of a security intelligence agency. But here’s the problem: If intelligence isn’t being read, it doesn’t matter. We also saw that in the foreign interference inquiry. The Prime Minister wasn’t reading his intelligence reports. The PMO staff were blocking or filtering intelligence before it even reached him. Or, when he did see intelligence, he dismissed it as—and I quote—”suspicion,” not important enough to worry about. That’s a problem.
So you have to ask: Why even bother having a security intelligence agency if no one is reading the intelligence? And if it is read but then rejected as “not important enough” or “not accurate enough” to inform policy decisions—what’s the point? That’s the problem we’re facing in Canada right now.
Phil Gurski is the President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting. He worked as a senior strategic analyst at CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) from 2001-2013, specializing in Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization. From 1983 to 2001, he was employed as a senior multilingual analyst at Communications Security Establishment specializing in the Middle East. He also served as senior special advisor in the National Security Directorate at Public Safety Canada from 2013 until he retired from the civil service in May 2015 and as a consultant for the Ontario Provincial Police’s Anti-Terrorism Section (PATS) in 2015. Mr. Gurski has presented on Al Qaeda/Islamic State-inspired violent extremism and radicalization across Canada and around the world. He is the author of “The Threat from Within: Recognizing Al Qaeda-inspired Radicalization and Terrorism in the West” (Rowman and Littlefield) and “Western Foreign Fighters: The Threat to Homeland and International Security” (Rowman and Littlefield). He regularly blogs (Terrorism in Canada and the West – available on his Web site) and tweets on terrorism. Gurski, a counterterrorism specialist, discusses the dilution of the term “expert,” particularly in counterterrorism studies post-9/11. He distinguishes between practitioners with field experience and academics who analyze terrorism theoretically. Gurski traces modern terrorism to anarchist movements in the 19th century and references David Rapoport’s Four Waves of Terrorism model. He critiques broad definitions of terrorism, arguing it must involve serious violence for ideological, religious, or political goals. He emphasizes the challenges of counterterrorism, highlighting intelligence thresholds and the unpredictability of radicalization. Security services must discern genuine threats from mere online rhetoric, making prevention highly complex.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Phil Gurski. We are launching a series for Free Inquiry, and I am delighted to call this my very first series following an interview with Dr. Herb Silverman for A Further Inquiry. Matthew and Khadija, I’ve happily joined their editorial team, and I feel very privileged and grateful for this opportunity.
To open this series—which may eventually become a book—we will explore counterterrorism and counter-extremism, defining terrorism and extremism in the process. Before starting, we briefly discussed it, and you made an astute point.
I appreciate the term “expert” because I approach this topic as a freelance journalist surveying experts. However, you pointed out that the term has lost much of its meaning or has been diluted. That is an interesting observation.
Phil Gurski: I recognize that most media outlets seek comments, insights, or perspectives from individuals they label as “experts.” For example, suppose a news report covers wildfires in British Columbia. In that case, the outlet may introduce a guest by saying, “We have brought in an expert to discuss why wildfires are a problem and how we can stop them.”
More specifically, in the field of counterterrorism and counter-extremism, we have seen what I would call an explosion—no pun intended—of individuals referring to themselves as experts, particularly since 9/11. There are generally two categories of people who comment on terrorism. The first group consists of practitioners—or, in my case, ex-practitioners—who have worked in counterterrorism within law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or similar fields. The second group consists of academics who study terrorism from a theoretical perspective.
I have no issue with academics writing about terrorism, and I count many among my friends. However, following 9/11, due to the sheer enormity of the attack, many people suddenly jumped on the bandwagon. Individuals who could not spell Al-Qaeda on September 10 learned to spell it on September 12 and soon claimed to be Al-Qaeda experts.
This trend was unnecessary and often driven by self-promotion. Thomas Friedman, a renowned New York Timesjournalist, once made an insightful remark—one I first heard from a podcast guest of mine. He noted that, in the aftermath of 9/11, whenever he saw a news ticker reading “Coming up next: Terrorism Expert” on CNN or MSNBC, he took it as his cue to switch to the Golf Channel. He did not think highly of the term “terrorism expert.”
Terrorism, as a phenomenon, has dominated our attention for the past quarter-century. However, terrorism did not begin on 9/11. In the modern sense, it dates back at least 50 years. But the sheer scale of 9/11—along with its symbolic targets in New York and Washington, striking at the heart of the United States—brought the issue to global prominence. Consequently, many people rushed to make their voices heard, and the field of counterterrorism expanded rapidly.
As a result, I have always been transparent about my professional background. I worked in HUMINT for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and SIGINT at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). I have written seven books on terrorism, contributed to blogs, hosted podcasts, and participated in media interviews worldwide. I have also travelled extensively to discuss these issues.
But because of what I call the cheapness of the term and the fact that it has essentially become all but meaningless, I prefer to be called a terrorism and counterterrorism specialist to avoid association with people who, frankly, have never worked in the field.
Let me give you an analogy. I spent thirty-two years in intelligence, and the media here in Canada often asks, “This major cyberattack took place—can you comment on it?” Cybersecurity is obviously part of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), particularly in the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and CSIS.
And my response is, “I can’t spell cyber. I never worked in that field. I’m useless. If my keyboard works in the morning, I’m a happy camper. I will never portray myself as a cyber expert.”
So, I’d prefer the term expert be used very sparingly. I prefer a clear distinction between those who study terrorism and those who have worked in counterterrorism. These are two very distinct perspectives. There is room for both, but the term has expanded beyond its usefulness over the past quarter-century.
Rather, it is a long answer to a short question.
Jacobsen: In that response, you noted the modern sense of terrorism. What did it mean more than a hundred and fifty years ago?
Gurski: It didn’t mean anything. The term itself did not enter the English language until the 19th century. Interestingly, it first appeared in response to violent Irish nationalism—those attempting to establish an independent Ireland.
If you go back far enough, yes, there was the Reign of Terror in France, but that wasn’t terrorism—it was mob violence. It was not terrorism in the sense that we use the term today.
Most scholars agree that the true origins of modern terrorism can be traced to anarchist groups or individuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who targeted heads of state to try to change the political system. Think of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the eve of World War I—that was carried out by an anarchist. President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo, New York. An Italian king was assassinated, and anarchists also killed a Russian tsar.
When we talk about assassinations, we generally refer to politically motivated murders. One of the crucial points about terrorism is that it is an act of violence for an underlying cause—it is not random violence. It is not violence for the sake of violence; it is violence intended to advance an idea.
Currently, in Canada, we define terrorism as violence perpetrated for ideological, religious, or political reasons. These are the three primary drivers of terrorism as we legally define it.
If I may use that term loosely, the anarchist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries represents the first manifestation of modern terrorism.
Jacobsen: Were most terrorist activities in that earlier period—where heads of state or major political figures were being murdered—driven by anarchist ideologies?
Gurski: More often than not, they were.
A friend of mine, a scholar named David Rapoport, is probably in his nineties now. He wrote a very influential paper called The Four Waves of Terrorism, which remains one of the most significant academic contributions to our understanding of the evolution of terrorism.
He categorized terrorist movements into four main waves. The anarchist wave, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was followed by the ethnonationalism wave, which coincided with the post-colonial period. This included movements such as Irish republicanism and various African groups seeking independence from Belgium, France, Britain, Germany, and other colonial powers.
The third wave, which he referred to as the New Left, included groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany, the Japanese Red Army, and the Brigate Rosse in Italy—organizations that pursued left-wing revolutionary causes.
We are currently in what he called the religious wave, which dates back to the late 1970s. Key events that shaped this wave include the Iranian Revolution in February 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which eventually led to the formation of the Taliban and later Al-Qaeda.
Another critical but often overlooked event was the Grand Mosque Siege in Mecca in 1979. This event pushed the Saudi government to adopt an even more austere and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, which was already highly conservative at the time. It played a crucial role in shaping the ideology of figures like Osama bin Laden and the rise of Al-Qaeda.
Now, the term wave should be used very loosely. We still see ethnonationalist terrorism today, even though its peak was in the mid-to-late 20th century. We still have anarchist terrorism. However, the dominant ideological driver of terrorism in 2025—and for nearly fifty years—has been Islamist terrorism, specifically jihadism.
This includes individuals and groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS (Islamic State), Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and many others who use a particular interpretation of Islam to justify violence. They aim to establish and impose their version of Islam on local populations while also targeting the West in retaliation for what they perceive as offences against Islam in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.
Jacobsen: Do many of these ideologies—regardless of Rapoport’s four waves—boil down to something akin to ideologies of resentment?
Gurski: One of the biggest challenges we face is defining ideology itself.
Let me give you an example. In the past four to five years, there has been growing concern in Canada and the United States—perhaps elsewhere as well—about so-called violent incels. Incels refer to involuntary celibates—men who feel entitled to relationships and, when rejected, become resentful and violent toward women.
Some argue that incel violence constitutes an ideology. I push back strongly against that idea. It is violent misogyny, plain and simple. These individuals hate women because women will not conform to their desires. This is no different from domestic violence, partner abuse, or other forms of misogynistic aggression.
So, we are left with the question: Is there enough structure in this belief system to constitute an ideology?
Canada’s Criminal Code further complicates the issue. While terrorism is legally defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, passed after 9/11 in February 2002, the law refers to serious violence motivated by ideological, religious, or political causes. However, it does not define what constitutes an ideology.
One person’s ideology might be another person’s set of ideas. That distinction—or lack thereof—makes things incredibly complicated.
And to add to the confusion, consider the current U.S. president’s recent move to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. I strongly disagree with that classification. Criminal organizations like the Sinaloa Cartel have no ideology.
They are not committing violence for political or religious reasons. Their goal is profit—selling drugs, controlling territory, and intimidating local populations to facilitate their criminal enterprises. That is not ideological terrorism; it is organized crime.
I leave the term ideology itself to philosophers and political scientists to debate. However, I do not believe that anyone—whether academic or practitioner—has fully resolved the issue of how to define ideology in this context.
Jacobsen: And we may need some grounding here. What are the generally accepted consensus definitions of counterterrorism, counter-extremism, and their countermeasures?
Gurski: Yes. So, let’s start with the concept of “terrorism” itself.
There has to be an act of serious violence. People throw around terms like cyberterrorism, but that is not terrorism. If you take down a banking system, that is not terrorism. It is an inconvenience and may disrupt financial systems, but it does not meet the threshold of terrorism.
If you take out a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system disrupting electricity or water supply, that is serious. But even then, it is sabotage, not terrorism. It is an attempt to undermine a country’s infrastructure. For something to be classified as terrorism, violence has to be part of it—first and foremost.
It has to be a serious act of violence. Let me give you an example.
The so-called Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in February 2022. We all remember the scenes: 18-wheelers blocking Wellington Street in front of Parliament, crowds, shouting, demonstrations, rude signs—very un-Canadian behaviour, not saying sorry every fifteen seconds.
Some people in Ottawa called that terrorism. And I asked them, “Can you name a single act of violence that came out of the Freedom Convoy?” The answer was “no.”
Did they say mean things to people? Yes, probably. Because some of them were assholes, but that is not an act of violence. That is just being an asshole.
Of course, the government then invoked the Emergencies Act, which a federal court later ruled was illegal. The only legal justification for invoking the Emergencies Act is if CSIS determines that an individual or group threatens national security. And CSIS publicly stated that these protesters were not a threat to national security.
In their assessment, the Freedom Convoy organizers couldn’t organize a piss-up in a bar, let alone threaten the country. So, the government did not even have the legal foundation to justify invoking the act.
Terrorism has to be violent in nature. It can be the threat of violence or the actual use of violence. But it cannot be intimidation, personal revenge, or profit-driven crime. The violence must be carried out to advance a specific ideological, religious, or political goal.
That is, at its most basic, my definition of terrorism.
Jacobsen: Would you get pushback from others in your field?
Gurski: Oh, tons. Absolutely tons. Some would argue that certain criminal groups do have an ideology. To which I say, Great, show me the evidence.
Interestingly, there are acts of violence that are not labelled as terrorism when, by definition, they should be.
For example, take the church burnings in Canada a few years ago. In the aftermath of the mass graves story—graves that, by the way, have never been found—we saw over 300 churches burned across Canada.
Those were acts of terrorism, whether carried out by Indigenous activists, left-wing extremists, or other groups. The Criminal Code does not define terrorism as simply killing people. It includes serious acts of violence against significant property.
I would argue that burning down 300 churches is a significant act of violence against property. And yet, no one in government would ever dare call that terrorism. The prime minister said, “I don’t like it, but I understand it.”
Well, then you must understand 9/11, too. You may not like it, but you understand it. It’s ludicrous to take this series of violent acts and say, “Well, yes, it’s not terrorism.” There is a phrase you will never hear in Canada: First Nations terrorism.
It is inconvenient because of Truth and Reconciliation, and the list goes on if it occurs. With all these past injustices we are apologizing for, no one will call a spade a spade and label those acts as terrorism.
Jacobsen: What about the definition of extreme as a root word when discussing extremism itself? What is the threshold for extremism?
Gurski: Again, it comes down to violence. Extreme, in and of itself, is not necessarily problematic.
All joking aside, I consider Toronto Maple Leafs fans extreme. They haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1967—what is that? It’s been over half a century now. So, if you’re a Leafs fan—which I definitely am not—you are pretty extreme if you think they will win the Cup anytime soon.
Most social progress has come from extreme movements. Think of the fight for women’s rights—women chaining themselves to railings or throwing themselves in front of the king’s horse at the Epsom Derby in 1913—or the abolitionist movement against slavery. Those were extreme movements.
The French Revolution was also an extreme movement. It was violent, but I would argue it wasn’t purely political—though others might disagree. So, extremism itself is not the issue. It only becomes a problem when it involves the use of violence to advance a cause.
Some people, including myself, sometimes use violent extremism and terrorism as synonyms. They are identical but close enough to be used interchangeably in many contexts. As a journalist, you likely appreciate that—you don’t want to use the same word repeatedly. You want to vary your style and vocabulary. That’s why I tend to use violent extremism and terrorism synonymously when I write.
Jacobsen: If we establish this framework and aim to counter such acts, how do we take violence as the foundation and use it to identify and combat terrorist and extremist acts of a violent nature?
Gurski: It’s not easy. I’ll return to my days with CSIS—the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. CSIS has a lower threshold for investigative power than law enforcement. People don’t realize that in Canada. As a security intelligence agency, CSIS does not collect information to an evidentiary standard—it collects intelligence, not evidence. This means its findings cannot be used in Canadian courts, often leading to legal challenges.
CSIS operates on reasonable grounds to suspect, whereas law enforcement requires reasonable grounds to believe. These are different legal standards, which means that CSIS can investigate someone at an earlier stage.
So, if Scott posts content online that seems problematic, it falls within CSIS’s mandate to ask, “What’s Scott up to? Let’s take a look at what he’s posting. Where is he posting it? What is he saying?”
Sometimes, they’ll knock on your door and say, “Hey, Scott. Hi. We’re with CSIS. What the fuck are you doing online, buddy? Why are you posting this kind of stuff?”
The challenge, however, is that most people who post stupid things online never act on them in the real world. It’s easy to post online—people can do it anonymously through VPNs, encrypted messaging apps, or privacy-focused browsers like Brave. They can vent, troll, or role-play as extremists.
It only becomes problematic when someone is advocating or threatening the use of violence. But even then, most of those who post threats online are either cowards or incompetent and incapable of following through.
The real challenge for security services is determining who crosses the threshold into actual violence. In Canada, when a case becomes serious enough—when CSIS has credible concerns that someone is moving from words to action—it has a mechanism to hand off intelligence to the RCMP.
For example, CSIS might say to the RCMP, “We’ve been following Scott for a while. We’ve spoken to him. There’s been no change. It’s getting worse.” At that point, the RCMP could launch a criminal investigation: Is this behaviour a violation of the Criminal Code? Is he making violent threats, planning acts, or engaging in criminal conspiracy?
But there’s no simple formula for this, right? No checklist? There’s no algorithm that says if you exhibit signs 1 through 3, we won’t worry, but if you show signs 1 through 6, we act.
The first book I wrote, The Threat from Within (2015), examined signs of violent radicalization but made it clear that these are not predictors of violence. Someone can be radicalized without ever becoming violent.
That’s the real challenge for security intelligence and law enforcement. First, you can’t monitor everyone. Second, you can’t investigate everyone.
So, which cases are serious? Who are the genuine threats, and who are just online wankers who will never act on their words?
I wish there were a simple, plug-and-play model to determine this. Over the past 25 years, I’ve seen many threat assessment models. Some are decent, but none are predictive in nature. This comes down to individual decision-making—and no model can fully predict human behaviour.
Let me use a simple example. When I wake up in the morning, do I have cereal, yogurt, bacon, an egg, or a bagel? I can’t predict that in advance until I get into the kitchen and see what’s on the shelf. What do I feel like? It’s the same thing with violent radicalization.
You cannot predict which individual will wake up one day and decide; today is the day. I will grab a knife from the counter and walk into a kindergarten. We’ve seen that happen in England. I will get in my car and drive down Granville Street at noon. I’m going to attack a police officer inside Commonwealth Stadium. That happened in Edmonton in 2017—a man attacked a police officer. Then, he ran over pedestrians while carrying an ISIS flag on his dashboard.
You can’t predict these things. Look at the New Orleans attack on New Year’s Eve this past year—you couldn’t predict that either. Stopping these kinds of attacks is extremely difficult for security agencies.
Tiffany Li Wu is Manager of Operations & Communications of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA). In her role, she communicates the organization’s goals, advocacy priorities, and policy development processes.In 2025, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) prioritizes investing in post-secondary education, housing, food insecurity, and combating hate-motivated attacks. These focus areas address government grants, financial aid, mental health, and support for international students. OUSA develops policies through a student-driven process, involving annual General Assemblies where delegates from member schools debate and ratify policies. Unique for its non-partisan, evidence-based advocacy, OUSA conducts a province-wide student survey to inform its strategies. Key challenges from the 2024 Ontario Budget include inadequate funding for education, student housing, and OSAP, prompting OUSA to advocate for increased government support to enhance affordability and accessibility in Ontario’s post-secondary system.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the goals and plans for the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) for 2025?
Tiffany Li Wu: OUSA’s annual advocacy priorities are set by the Board of Directors based on current student concerns and government advocacy strategy. For 2024-25, the Board has determined the following four priorities: investing in post-secondary education, housing, food insecurity, and responses to hate-motivated attacks as advocacy goals for the year. These topics focus on government operating grants, student financial aid, mental health, and international students. We are also monitoring the potential for a 2025 provincial election and in that case, we will be advocating on post-secondary sector sustainability, housing, food insecurity, and student financial aid to all political parties.
Jacobsen: How does OUSA develop and ratify its organizational policies from election cycle to election cycle?
OUSA’s policy papers on post-secondary issues are active for a four year period but do not necessarily overlap with election cycles. Every year, four to six policy papers are selected from our library and are amended to align with current student concerns and consider any legislative or policy changes by government since it was last ratified. Depending on the developments in the sector, new policies may also be proposed which was recently exemplified by our Responding to the Blue Ribbon Panel Report policy paper (not yet published but passed). These policy papers are edited and written entirely by students. They are brought to our General Assembly, a conference we host twice a year, where student representatives from each of our member schools come together to provide further feedback on the policy papers. At the end of the conference, all the delegates participate in a final debate and ratification of the policies. Internal organizational policies to govern and guide OUSA are decided by the Board of Directors as needed.
Jacobsen: What is unique about its approach to advocacy and similar to other associations and federations?
One of OUSA’s pillars in our approach to advocacy is the student-driven nature of the organization. Our Board of Directors are entirely made up of current students or recent graduates, who guide the advocacy and strategic direction of the organization. As mentioned before, we also centre student voices in our policy process as they author, edit, and vote on the policies OUSA advocates on. We are a non-partisan organization and thus, our advocacy is targeted to all political parties using stances from our policy papers to maintain integrity of the student voice in our relationships with elected officials. We also run a biennial survey that gathers comprehensive information on students’ experiences of their university education, and this is the only province-wide survey of its kind. We use this data in our lobby efforts as well as in our policy papers, in order to ensure we are providing evidence-based recommendations to government.
Jacobsen: In annual publication, what issues are highlighted that affect undergraduate students at OUSA member institutions?
As mentioned before, priorities change annually depending on emerging concerns from students and strategic advocacy tactics. Issues that OUSA has highlighted over the past couple of years that affect undergraduate students include student financial aid, sector sustainability, housing, food insecurity, gender-based violence, and mental health. Recommendations for our priorities this year can be found in the attached document. Additionally, we annually publish Educated Solutions, a magazine that brings together the province’s post-secondary stakeholders as authors of various articles about a relevant issue in the sector at a given time. Previous editions of Educated Solutions can be found here.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of OUSA’s General Assembly?
OUSA’s General Assembly brings students together from all of our member institutions and occurs at the final stage in our policy process. Throughout the four days of the conference, all student delegates get the opportunity to view the proposed papers and give feedback on our policy recommendations, ensuring that each paper reflects the views of their student bodies. The number of delegates that come from each university is proportional to the size of their student body – the larger the student body, the more delegates a school can bring to attend the conference. After the feedback sessions, student authors spend their evenings considering the comments and implementing it into the paper. On the final day, students are able to propose any final amendments, all of which are then voted on individually before the paper is officially ratified by students.
Jacobsen: What is OUSA’s vision for post-secondary education in Ontario?
All of OUSA’s advocacy aims to guide our province towards a more affordable, accessible, high-quality, and accountable post-secondary education system. These are our guiding principles as we develop all of our policy recommendations. Importantly, our recommendations actively consider an intersectional lens in order to promote equity within higher education and ensure that our policies reflect the specific needs of marginalized students related to our guiding principles.
Jacobsen: Which event brings OUSA student leaders to Queen’s Park?
Each November, OUSA’s Student Advocacy Conference brings two representatives from each of our member schools to Queen’s Park. We spend the week meeting with as many MPPs and Ministry staff as possible, and advocate on the priorities that our board has laid out for the given year. We also host a Queen’s Park reception at some point during this week, often in collaboration with our fellow student advocacy groups.
Jacobsen: What key challenges did OUSA identify in response to the 2024 Ontario Budget?
Although OUSA appreciated the government’s $1.3 billion investment in post-secondary education, this number fell significantly short of the $2.5 billion needed to keep the sector viable, according to the Blue Ribbon Panel. This budget allocation does not do enough to address the long-term needs of institutions, nor does it resolve the chronic underfunding of the sector which is particularly worrisome under the impacts of the federal cap on international visas. Students currently contribute over 60% towards university operating revenue through tuition and fees; despite this, a continued lack of government funding will ultimately impact student supports and services. This dampens the quality of post-secondary experiences for students and leaves them without the critical resources that they rely on, like mental health and accessibility services, to carry them through their education.
Additionally, the lack of targeted funding for student housing initiatives was further disappointing. Although student housing was mentioned under the Building Ontario Fund, students are in a uniquely vulnerable position when it comes to rental costs – they face time-sensitive pressures to secure housing in highly competitive markets, surging the prices for units, and pay 25% more than the national average rental unit cost. While the supply of student housing is not currently meeting demand, more needs to be done in order to alleviate the current financial pressures of rent on students.
Finally, for the third year in a row, Ontario’s 2024 budget made no mention of OSAP funding. Despite the rising need for direct financial support in order to address the cost-of-living crisis, there continues to be no substantial improvements to OSAP. As a primary mechanism to facilitate accessibility and affordability of post-secondary education in the province and tangibly benefit students, it is critical that financial aid be at the forefront of post-secondary funding decisions.
Overall, while we were appreciative of the continued tuition freeze and investments to gender-based and sexual violence support, the 2024 budget had several shortcomings related to the needs of post-secondary students, exacerbating the the challenges that they are currently facing.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tiffany.
The congress considering that the present situation of our civilization is a challenge to all humanist and ethical groups to extend their activities on an international level, resolves
To found an International Humanist and Ethical Union
To authorize the Steering Committee enlarged with representatives of each approved organization that proposes to adhere to the Union to give effect to this decision in accordance with the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation, subject to the condition that this Union shall be deemed to be constituted as soon as the organizations from three different countries shall have joined.
IHEU congress 1952
‘The Foundation of IHEU’, Humanists International, World Humanist Congress, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1952
THis policy, as with the others from 1952, were setting the stage for the existence of IHEU, or the International Humanist and Ethical Union, into HI or Humanists International, what we know today.
What is the point of an international or global organization for a movement? As far as I can tell, it is for the simple or straightforward purpose of extending any national or regional efforts onto the international stage.
As anyone who has gone to a Humanists International conference will note, the strength is building trust and commitment between organizations, sharing struggles and strategies for combatting them, and realizing how the problems are common.
This policy may seem redundant in making the stipulation about coming together internationally and working on our common problems. However, it’s a good thing. Reminders are helpful. Formal policies are good anchors in this way. If anyone asks, we can point attention to the policy — all the way back to 1952.
The IHEU garnered force through this policy, in a way, with the “Steering Committee” to enlarge representation and effectuate larger forms of action in this way.
Duly note, this policy is listed as “pending-review.”
This congress is a response to the wide spread demand for an alternative to the religions which claim to be based on revelation on the one hand, and totalitarian systems on the other. The alternative offered as a third way out of the present crisis of civilisation is humanism, which is not a new sect, but the outcome of a long tradition that has inspired many of the world’s thinkers and creative artists and given rise to science itself.
Ethical humanism unites all those who cannot any longer believe the various creeds and are willing to base their conviction on respect for man as a spiritual and moral being. The fundamentals of modern, ethical humanism are as follows:
It is democratic. It aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that this is a matter of right. The democratic principle can be applied to all human relationships and is not restricted to methods of government.
It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. It advocates a world-wide application of scientific method to problems of human welfare. Humanists believe that the tremendous problems with which mankind is faced in this age of transition can be solved. Science gives the means but science itself does not propose the ends.
Humanism is ethical. It affirms the dignity of man and the right of the individual to the greatest possible freedom of development compatible with the right of others. There is a danger in seeking to utilise scientific knowledge in a complex society individual freedom may be threatened by the very impersonal machine that has been created to save it. Ethical humanism, therefore, rejects totalitarian attempts to perfect the machine in order to obtain immediate gains at the cost of human values.
It insists that personal liberty is an end that must be combined with social responsibility in order that it shall not be sacrificed to the improvement of material conditions. Without intellectual liberty, fundamental research, on which progress must in the long run depend, would not be possible. Humanism ventures to build a world on the free person responsible to society. On behalf of individual freedom humanism is un-dogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
It is a way of life, aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment, through the cultivation of ethical and creative living. It can be a way of life for everyone everywhere if the individual is capable of the responses required by the changing social order. The primary task of humanism today it to make men aware in the simplest terms of what it can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising in this context and for purposes of peace the new power which science has given us, humanists have confidence that the present crisis can be surmounted. Liberated from fear the energies of man will be available for a self-realisation to which it is impossible to foresee the limit.
Ethical humanism is thus a faith that answers the challenge of our times. We call upon all men who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this cause.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union’s declaration was a monumental achievement for the global humanist movement. It served as a comprehensive framework for contemporary humanism, marking a significant milestone in the formal organization of humanism. Its influence was enduring, remaining unchanged until 2002 and 2022, with the second and third iterations of the declaration.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union’s declaration, now Humanists International, addresses five key principles: democracy, science, ethics, liberty, and fulfillment. It was born out of a pressing need for an alternative to the destructive influence of dogmatic religion and totalitarian systems. The declaration viewed both revelation and totalitarianism as societal ills, underscoring the urgency and relevance of humanism.
This is peculiar and part of a more fundamental issue in dogmatism. In a way, a more succinct concern is the dogmatism of which political ideologies and religious fundamentalisms are derivative reflections bifurcating into two distinct pathways. They came out of World War II looking at the crisis of civilization. They saw humanism as the path forward.
Humanism, in its generous interpretation, encompasses all modern freethought. However, it has evolved to offer a variety of paths, narrowing in some aspects and expanding in others. The Amsterdam Declaration 2022explicitly references the historical particularist precedents of humanism, highlighting its evolution and relevance in the modern period.
Even in 1952, it was not seen as a Western item solely or uniquely European, but it emerged formally in Europe in the middle of the 20th century by happenstance of history. They mention something interesting and unique about ethical humanism. It may be a mix of the use of the original title of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in which ethical culture and humanism were more united rather than distinctive communities. Now, they are associated with distinct communities and forms of freethought.
The first stipulated value focuses on democratic values. We see this pervasive throughout humanistic institutions. They tend to come from democratic countries. They tend to form in democratic countries. There is a voting structure; people typically vote in rather than be appointed. This is the nature of democratic action in humanistic institutions and the values we hold.
As we all realize at some point and often, science is a neutral instrument. It can be used for the creation and destruction. These signatories from the massive devastation wrought by the Second World War indicate the issue there. The science of war is an application of technologies developed by scientific methodologies.
The focus on ethics seems straightforward. In a way, it is a larger point than a single principle stipulates. Most humanists come as atheists and agnostics, or nothing in particular, in part due to the fact of the lack of an ethical foundation in the movements. As seems obvious, you can find Marxist atheists, Libertarian atheists, Buddhist atheists, and the like. They can have different systems of belief, even ethics like Objectivism and egoism, while being atheists.
So, a focus on dignity, individual rights, freedom, dangers in scientific knowledge, and the like is important for many people. Religion becomes less important. Humanism fills the gap for some, but not all. Following this, the emphasis on individual liberty and social responsibility seems to strike a good balance between being a social species and having individual interests. Many secular philosophies have this overlap in ethics without recourse to supernatural beings. I love that. The point is the building and guiding, as poets in a way, rather than coercion at the point of a gun or a godhead.
Fulfillment is the last part of “ethical humanism” mentioned here. Democracy, ethics, social responsibility, and the like are part of the general mapping of ethics to a single system, inchoate and forming in the middle of the 20th century. They emphasize “men,” I would have preferred people or human beings, but the times were slightly different then. Humans are liberated for more joyous contentment with the finite time given to us rather than wasted in the “fear of the Lord” or some such thing.
Long fore-running the days of all the major visitation spots in British Columbia, before the time of the founding of Canada on July 1, 1867, prior to the foundation of Fort Langley (though concomitant with it, later), definitively before the title of “Fort Langley National Historical Site of Canada,” or the places of art and the galleries[1], the accommodations[2], the restaurants[3], the businesses dealing in finance and real estate[4], the floral and bridal and antique shops[5], the gift and health & beauty shops[6], visitation spots and services[7], or any of the local community groups and activities and events and items[8], or the introduction of highly educated and well-to-do Evangelical Christians throughout the area from Trinity Western University, the fights at the Supreme Court of Canada for the Evangelical law school, the infamous artist and developer fights[9], or the civic debates of the Township of Langley Cllrs.[10], or such inane, and banal and almost pointless, meanderings as written by the current author on the subject(s) surrounding Fort Langley[11], there existed one individual by the name of Jim Douglas, or Sir James Douglas, KCB[12] (no known relation).*[13] A man whose life seems more titivating with nuance added to the story, small enhancements made clear, while learning more about him: Mr. Mix-A-Lot.
So many parties wish to lay claim to the titular ownership of “Fort Langley National Historic Site of Canada,” only a few wish to understand without claiming it. There’s a vast gulf between the former and the latter only learned through hard experience and conversations with the peoples of the area, settler or not. Douglas was the Governor of British Columbia 1858–1864 and of Vancouver Island 1851 to 1864. He did not start here. Born August 15th, 1803, in Demerara, Guyana (formerly British Guiana), his legacy between and death — on August 2nd, 1877 — remains the founding of British Columbia or, more colloquially, as “The Father of British Columbia.” Neither a minor figure in the community village nor in the provincial history, he set the tone and calibre of the attractiveness of the colonial outposts here. He assisted the Hudson Bay Company acquire a trade monopoly in the Pacific Northwest, as the Chief Factor of HBC from 1839 to 1858. He helped establish British rule west of the Rocky Mountains as the governor of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. A part of this had to do with the negotiation of land purchases with the First Nations. His career took him through the Fraser River Gold Rush, Cariboo Gold Rush, and the Fraser Canyon War.
Guyana, at the time of his birth, was a Dutch colony. His father, John Douglas, owned a cotton and sugar plantation in Demerara. John was a Scottish Merchant who came from the Earls of Angus. One of the oldest of the known mormaerdoms, regional/provincial rulers. His mother, Martha Ann Ritchie, was born in Bardados as a free woman of colour. ‘Person of colour’ referred to someone of mixed African and European heritage. In other words, a non-enslaved mixed ‘race’ woman. Martha met John while he was on the plantation business. They never married and had three children with John returning to Scotland, and who married in 1809 to begin anew with another family. Sir James Douglas — a man of mixed ‘race’ or ethnic heritage — and his brother, Alexander Douglas, were sent to Lanark, Scotland, to become educated. James never went back to Demerara and never saw his mother again — such were the times. They had three children together, though they never married. John Douglas returned to Scotland, where he married in 1809 and started a second family.
With the North West Company or the NWC, (Sir James) Douglas was 15 when he became a part of the working staff. He apprenticed with them, then sailed to Montreal, so was working in the fur trade learning its accounting practices. There was a period of intense competition between the NWC and the Hudson Bay Company or the HBC at the time. It was a mostly economic battle between trade giants. Douglas was caught in this as a teenager. Apparently, in 1820, he fought an HBC guide, Patrick Cunningham, in a bloodless duel. When the NWC merged with the HBC, Douglas became employed by the HBC. The HBC won the economic war. His first posting was in 1826 at Fort St. James in the mainland of modern British Columbia. Chief Factor, William Connolly, requested Douglas to become part of the overland fur brigade at Fort Alexandria to Fort Vancouver. Such as the times were, Douglas, in fact, married Connolly’s daughter, Amelia. Now, bearing in mind, Douglas comes from a mixed-race mother or free woman of colour and a Scottish father; Amelia’s mother was Cree. Ergo, a mixed ethnic background — First Nations and European — wife, Amelia, and mixed Guyanese and Scottish husband, James (Douglas), for a mixed ethnic coupling.
Which is to say, taking a moment to opine, even for today, this retains a character of the revolutionary to it. In that, even within the modern discourse of inter-ethnic couples, striving new paths and creating bridges in Afro-Canadian and Indigenous lives, Douglas simply did it. He did more, talked less. Amelia and James married on April 27th, 1828, and, again, at an Anglican ceremony in Fort Vancouver (1837). Something of a renewal of vows, presumably, and a sacralization of the union under the auspices of the Anglican Church. Within Fort Vancouver, Chief Factor John McLoughlin was the boss of Douglas, while Douglas was the superintendent of Columbia District fur trade for two decades. Douglas went to Alaska in 1840 to negotiate trade/boundary deals with the Russian American Company. Much of Douglas’s efforts vis-à-vis trade and boundary building appears part of a local effort against international efforts, including the Russians, though more acutely the Americans, with an increase in the American influence on the Pacific Northwest, Douglas started the construction of Fort Victoria (1843). Circa 1846, British North America in the West and the United States had a border set at the 49th parallel based on the Oregon Treaty (June 15th, 1846). Originally, the land was jointly held by the Americans and the British through the 1818 Treaty. This was monumental to British-American relations. The HBC moved from Fort Vancouver, presumably as a response. Douglas began a new fur brigade from Fort Langley to New Caledonia, then Fort Victoria became the place for furs shipped from the interior for the HBC.
With the continued threat of American expansionism, Vancouver Island was made a Crown colony (January 13th, 1849). Douglas was appointed an agent for the HBC on the island. Interestingly, in a twist of finance and trade overruling political power, Richard Blanshard was chosen by the British government as the governor; however, as it turns out, Blanshard found most of the associations were held in the hands of the HBC with the individual British colonists mostly associated with the HBC and power invested in the chief factor of the HBC — by that time, James Douglas, himself. In short, he chose to resign and leave Vancouver Island (August, 1851). ‘Why bother?,’ in other words. On October 30th, 1851, Sir James Douglas was selected as governor. In association with the HBC and while the governor, he was criticized for a conflict of interest. Even further, and not to his credit, Douglas appointed his brother-in-law as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the time. Circa 1856, Douglas was — by definition — elitist in considering people wanting the rule classes to make the decisions for them. Sort of, ‘Get them, the fray, out of our hair, and let us get one with making the important decisions,’ as the attitude, that’s astonishing for someone of mixed ethnic heritage from Demerara. When making a legislative assembly — based on a request from the Colonial Office, Douglas put property qualifications on the right to vote. In other words, only a few could count for membership in the assembly: land-owners versus the rest, in short. Sir James Douglas was not democratic; he was anti-democracy, or a timocratist erring more on land-ownership side rather than the inherent sense of honour. In ironic fashion, we, in modern democratic Canada, honour Sir James Douglas, the timocratwho opposed universal suffrage.[14]
Between 1850 and 1854, Douglas negotiated land treaties with First Nations on Vancouver Island. 14 in total. The Fort Victoria Treaties or Douglas Treaties were cash, clothing, blankets, hunting and fishing rights, etc., in barter for land. In traditional colonial fashion, Douglas left the terms of the agreements blank at the time of the signing. So, the clauses were added at a later time. Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Douglas, in this wrinkle, too, was not a saint; he was through-and-through a settler in mind. Some oral history from the Indigenous claim the signatories — the Indigenous signatories — thought the signings were land sharing deals or peace signings, so sharing and not ceding land. Do you see the issue? The X signed looked like the Christian symbol of the cross, so a spiritual gesture — not the proverbial John Handcock, and so on and so forth. With the coming of Americans from California, too, during the Fraser River Gold Rush, the numbers of Americans to British subjects began to swell. So as to protect the land for the Crown (the British rulers), Douglas claimed the land and minerals for them. Licenses were given to miners to prevent invasion. This was seen as an attempt to keep HBC monopolization. He was reprimanded by the Colonial Office.
Douglas was a completely sympathetic individual to the British. He was a loyalist. Even so far as to go to the San Francisco Black community to find migrants sympathetic to the Crown, the issue was the increasing numbers of American migrants coming to the areas around Douglas without necessary identity links to Britain. Since the United States Supreme Court declared free and enslaved Black Americans unable to acquire citizenship in 1857, Douglas, ever the man looking for opportunities, offered citizenship after 5 years of land ownership. A few hundred Black American families moved to the colony in Victoria. In some ways, one can ask, “Is this good or bad?” It was politically opportunistic in service to the British; it was socially beneficial in giving the disenfranchisemed some modicum of enfranchisement. It depends on the aperture and the angle of the lighting.
Nlaka’pamux communities were the Indigenous communities along the Fraser River. Douglas worried of bloodshed between the Nlaka’pamux and the American miners, and warned the British who could not respond in time. American miners came and reached the lower Fraser River. Sexual violence was reported to happen against the Nlaka’pamux women. Gold was mined without Nlaka’pamux communities’ consultation. Nlaka’pamux fishing was interrupted. Nlaka’pamux communities armed to protect themselves, some of them. Douglas ordered one gunboat on the Fraser River and wanted licenses from miners who went to find gold. Having no army, so no force, and asking for help from the British, the British responded to the plea for help: Staking a claim to the Fraser River as part of the Crown. Alas, August, 1858 found Nlaka’pamux communities and the miners at war. Some 36 people (5 chiefs) were murdered, 3 were imprisoned, and unknown others were wounded. 5 Nlaka’pamux communities were burned down by the miners. By August 22nd, a truce was set. Comically, Douglas arrived with 35 armed men from the British government, though the fighting had ended by that point — fruitless pursuit of peace when a truce has been brokered.
Gold changes everything. Britain chose to remove the HBC privileges during March of 1859 with the discovery of gold. Douglas was made governor of British Columbia while on condition of no more ties to the fur trade industry. Although, governor of Vancouver Island at the time. He was inaugurated as governor of British Columbia in — of all places — Fort Langley, then made Companion of the Order of the Bath for work as governor on Vancouver Island. Fort Langley almost became the first capital of British Columbia. On January 6th, 1859, Royal Engineer Commanding Officer Colonel Richard Clement Moody went by Fort Langley en route to Yale. After visitation of the site, he decided a better place would be New Westminster, which became the first capital of British Columbia. With 1866 came the merger of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, thereafter, Victoria became the capital of British Columbia. Douglas focused on the welfare of miners and setting reserves, via gold commissioners, for the Indigenous peoples. He, probably, didn’t want a repeat of war, as before, and worked on a land policy inclusive of mineral rights. In 1860, British Columbians wanted a form of popular government. He had to be confronted by the citizens, in other words. Whatever the response, the citizens were not happy with Douglas’s response to them. They petitioned the London Colonial Office in 1863. Douglas, subsequently, retired in 1864; these petitioners may or may not have influenced the decision. He was given the title of “Sir” as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, thusly came to be known — to the plains-folk of the land of Fort Langley — as Sir James Douglas of Douglas Day fame. He died of a heart attack on August 2nd, 1877, incidentally the informal birth date of In-Sight Publishing (2012). All information above is publicly available on the “Father of British Columbia.” A governor, a chief factor, a British loyalist or someone tied deeply to the Crown, a latecomer to war needs, a diplomat knowing the influence of material goods to keep communities at peace, a mixed-ethnicity man (European and Guyanese) married to a mixed-ethnicity woman (First Nations and European) in an inter-ethnic union, someone opposed to popular democracy in favour of a form of ‘democracy’ more closely resembling timocracy or rulership by those who own land. Neither entirely evil nor wholly good, a mixed man of mixed heritage with mixed morals leaving a mixed legacy as “The Father of British Columbia.”
Creationism and Intelligent Design are primarily an Abrahamic-religion-created problem. They come, most often, out of white Evangelical Christianity, Protestant Christianity, followed by other Christian denominations and then in the form of some Islamic creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. There has been, recently, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), as one Intelligent Design promoting society based on the religious beliefs of the Hare Krishnas. Several organizations exist devoted to the movement for the pseudoscientific and genericized theological position: The Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) of the Discovery Institute, Access Research Network, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, and the Intelligent Design Network, while others specifically devote themselves to Creationism such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Creation Science Evangelism. Even societies emerged, for example, the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) contains numerous individuals deeply involved, even as fellows, including Michael Behe, John Angus Campbell, Robin Collins, Bruce L. Gordon, Muzaffar Iqbal, William Lane Craig, William A. Dembski, Scott Minnich, Alvin Plantinga, Jonathan Wells, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, and lesser-known others. On home turf, in Canadian society, we come to the issues of Creationism and Intelligent Design, too, with a center of the storm in Langley, British Columbia, Canada, through Trinity Western University. All these can be drivers of public ignorance on the subject matter of evolution via natural selection.
Examination of the American context is informative for the Canadian environs. According to Marshall Berman in “Intelligent Design: The New Creationism Threatens All of Science and Society“ in APS News (APS Physics), circa 2001 via Gallup polls, 45% of Americans believe the following statement: “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” It’s about half as many Canadians compared now. Only about 1/5 hold similar views. As noted in “Freethought for the Small Towns: A Case Study“[1], the heart of Evangelical Christianity in Canadian society, probably, comes in the form of the private Evangelical Christian university Trinity Western University and the surrounding communities with one found in Fort Langley, a lovely community village and a National Historic Site, which happens to exists on the periphery of Trinity Western University’s fundamentalist Evangelical community, higher education, and doctrinal mandates for community seen in their “Community Covenant“ and “Statement of Faith.” The “Community Covenant” stipulates:
The University’s mission, core values, curriculum and community life are formed by a firm commitment to the person and work of Jesus Christ as declared in the Bible… The University is an interrelated academic community rooted in the evangelical Protestant tradition; it is made up of Christian administrators (including the members of the Board of Governors), faculty and staff who covenant together to form a community that strives to live according to biblical precepts, believing that this will optimize the University’s capacity to fulfil its mission and achieve its aspirations. The community covenant is a solemn pledge in which members place themselves under obligations… By doing so, members accept reciprocal benefits and mutual responsibilities… It is vital that each person who accepts the invitation to become a member of the TWU community carefully considers and sincerely embraces this community covenant… The University’s acceptance of the Bible as the divinely inspired, authoritative guide for personal and community life1 is foundational to its affirmation that people flourish and most fully reach their potential when they delight in seeking God’s purposes, and when they renounce and resist the things that stand in the way of those purposes being fulfilled… TWU reserves the right to question, challenge or discipline any member in response to actions that impact personal or social welfare… sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond it is God’s intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation… This formal covenant applies to those that serve the TWU community, that is, administrators, faculty and staff employed by TWU and its affiliates. Unless specifically stated otherwise, expectations of this covenant apply to both on and off TWU’s campus and extension sites. Sincerely embracing every part of this covenant is a requirement for employment. Employees who sign this covenant also commit themselves to abide by campus policies published in their respective Faculty and Staff Handbooks. TWU welcomes all students who qualify for admission, recognizing that not all affirm the theological views that are vital to the University’s Christian identity. While students are not required to sign this covenant, they have chosen to be educated within a Christian university that unites reason and faith. [Emphasis added.]
Within this community framework built or constructed by the “Community Covenant,” by fear of inability to become employed at Trinity Western University, as in “embracing every part of this covenant is requirement for employment,” all facets of this theological and social covenant must be agreed to – without qualms. As was expressed to me, “If I don’t sign the covenant, I don’t get a [work] contract.” As I have heard, one individual who worked at Trinity Western University and got divorced while employed, but who, as an employee, signed the contract. Thus, she was given a time limit to leave the position because of breaking community standards for something in personal life, i.e., getting divorced. This is an anecdote, not a charge, but this does raise alarms about internal culture. Be mindful, students had to sign this in previous times, as early as 2018.
However, the mandatory status for students was removed once Trinity Western University lost the Supreme Court of Canada case for its proposed law school 7-2. It was seen as an overwhelming loss and embarrassment to the community, as much legitimacy and respectability hinged on its success as an institution representative of Evangelical Christian postsecondary liberal arts education in the nation. In addition to the “Community Covenant,” the “Statement of Faith” makes similar statements about the explicit faith-based nature of the enterprise:
God’s gospel originates in and expresses the wondrous perfections of the eternal, triune God… God’s gospel is authoritatively revealed in the Scriptures… God’s gospel alone addresses our deepest need… God’s gospel is made known supremely in the Person of Jesus Christ… God’s gospel is accomplished through the work of Christ… God’s gospel is applied by the power of the Holy Spirit… God’s gospel is now embodied in the new community called the church… God’s gospel compels us to Christ-like living and witness to the world… God’s gospel will be brought to fulfillment by the Lord Himself at the end of this age… God’s gospel requires a response that has eternal consequences.
Overall, the nature of the covenant and the statement make the coercive nature of the private religious, Evangelical, in particular, institution much clearer. The Canadian Association of University Teachers found much the same years ago. (We will explore this in future articles.)
Its surrounding environs in Langley, including Fort Langley may be undergoing a retitling – attempted – by some work of the Township of Langley Council[2] through naming of a larger “University District,” as part of an expansionist vision for the Evangelical post-secondary institution. Noting, of course, it’s a private religious university, not public. In this sense, private religious forces using public cachet and political efforts to drop an illegitimate curtain of religious and ideological association on the entire area if this happens. It’s unfair, unjust, and shouldn’t happen at all, in my opinion. The most comprehensive statement on creationism within Canadian society exists in “Canadians’ and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism in the Matters of the Origins and Evolution“[3].
Now, to be clear, on Creationism and Intelligent Design as such, RationalWiki lists several scientific organizations, as a contrast to the creationist and intelligent design advocate organizations mentioned above, making explicit rejection of the claims of Creationism and Intelligent Design, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Psychological Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Botanical Society of America, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, National Association of Biology Teachers, National Center for Science Education, National Science Teachers Association, United States National Academy of Sciences, Kentucky Academy of Science, Kentucky Paleontological Society, Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative, Council of Europe, Intelligent Design is not Science Initiative, Interacademy Panel Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, International Society for Science and Religion, Project Steve, Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and the Royal Society. There’s no question. Intelligent Design and Creationism are pseudoscientific views, theological proposals, not scientific theories or even simple hypotheses. To quote one of the core intellectual founders of Intelligent Design – and a nice and intelligent man, Dr. William Dembski, “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.” [Emphasis added.] Thusly, for any higher education institution to so much as entertain that which is duly rejected as comical to the vast majority of practicing biologists and biology teachers is a disgrace to the value of “higher” in “higher education,” as I will present, these views have been encouraged unduly at Trinity Western University, and the community value statement and covenant prevent open speaking out against particular areas of academic silliness and prejudice because everyone is bound together in a coercive setup. No question about it.
So, Langley comes inter-related with some of the other communities, including some of the fundamentalist communities in Abbotsford. Those fundamentalist communities of Abbotsford link to the creationist communities in the area. As Andres Michael McKinnon in “Civil Society, public spheres and the ecology of environmentalism in four Fraser Valley communities: Burnaby, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford” (1997) stated, “Local issues have been even more shaped by conservative religion: the Abbotsford school board tried to mandate ‘Creationism’ being taught in public school classrooms; a Lower Mainland gay weekly, X-tra West was banned from Abbotsford Public Libraries in 1994; activism on “conservative” moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and violence on television is significant; prayer in public schools continued in most District 34 public elementary school classrooms until very recently, despite a Supreme Court Injunction; and a play by a local high-school student which openly discussed sexuality was banned by the school board. If Abbotsford is a very religious community, it is also, as Elliott and Simpson suggest, “a town divided into a series of relatively insulated communities organised around religion and ethnicity.” Conservative religious communities in one region connect to another.
It should be noted. The history comes with individuals running for schools boards. For example, when Dr. Darrell Furgason (Ph.D., Religious Studies) ran for the Chilliwack, British Columbia, school board, he is known as a lecturer at Trinity Western University, involved in education for more than 35 years, and who expresses open belief in “Biblical creationism, often referred to as Young Earth creationism” to quote Paul Henderson in “Biblical creationist joins Chilliwack school board race“ (The Chilliwack Progress). In a post on Creation.Com, he stated, “Theistic evolution is a wrong view of Genesis, as well as history, and biology. Adam & Eve were real people….who lived in real history….around 6000 [sic] years ago.” A lot of the creationist controversies start in this Bible Belt as a center of Canadian versions of Creationism.
As stated by Chris Woods in “Big Bang versus a Big Being,” “Certainly, this is far from the collision between Christian and secular morality in a region widely considered to be British Columbia’s Bible Belt… the area’s dozens of evangelical and fundamentalist churches, Bible colleges and flourishing private Christian schools reinforce its reputation for deep religious faith. That image has been bolstered by previous controversies.” Woods spoke of the attempts (circa 1995) to “ban a weekly gay and lesbian-oriented newspaper published in Vancouver from its shelves.” He continued, “Observed Cindy Filipenko, editor of the since-reinstated X-tra West: “I think the religious right has an agenda that is, basically, freedom for themselves and not for anybody else.” It’s a fascinating article.
Further, he found 56% of people from Abbotsford (of the time) believed the Bible was the “literal record of God’s word” based on a CV Marketing Research of Abbotsford poll of 110 people taken in November of 1993. Vancouver MarketTrend Research discovered 55% of people in the Lower Mainland believed “government should do more to support basic Christian values.” These are theocratically minded sentiments with the idea of non-separation of government and religion, i.e., non-neutrality. At the time, John Sutherland was the dean of business management at Trinity Western University and the Chair of the Abbotsford school board. He gave Bible classes within the Mennonite religion. The Vice-Chairman of the School board was Paul Chamberlain, who was another evangelical-minded Trinity Western faculty member. One school trustee of the time, Gerda Fandrich – an Evangelical Christian, stated, “There is scientific evidence that will support creationist theory, and there is scientific evidence against the theory of evolution in its entirety. And it should be taught.” When is a school board obliged to vote out scientifically ignorant or incompetent people out of it? We’re talking about the educational health and scientific literacy of the region, as well as the preservation of freedom of religion via the separation of religion and government.
It comes out in the national commentary or the comments on the national happenings of the country. The Governor General a couple years ago spoke out, calmly, and with a tinge of humor against pseudoscience. Dr. John Neufeld in “Governor General Julie Payette of Canada Mocks Creationism“ from Back to the Bible Canada stated, “Julie Payette is Canada’s new Governor General. At a recent speech to scientists at an Ottawa convention, Ms. Payette was very clear about how she felt about religion. She mocked those who were still debating about whether life came about as a result of divine intervention rather than natural processes.” That’s the opening statement and a common ignorant statement throughout Canada. At least, 1/5 Canadians hold creationist views. These are anti-scientific. When a credentialed and respectable woman critiques Creationism, not the religious individuals who adhere to it, educated and articulate people, as with Neufeld, conflate the critique of Creationism with critical and condescending attitudes about religious people; this presents the reality of the individuals’ views of (their) religion in Canada, i.e., as intrinsically adherent to creationist accounts rather than evolutionary plus theistic perspectives. It is, tacitly, to admit of the anti-scientific attitudes and stances of many theists in the country, including Neufeld. It is to take offense rather than provide a defense, or to take on the persistent garb among some educated classes of anti-intellectualism.
As seems reasonably clear, especially for individuals who read the first footnote (below) in detail, the connection between the lack of critical thinking in the places of worship, as in faith-based lectern lectures or homilies on the nature of reality and morality, and then the influence on the capacity for critical thought in the wider community. This seems to happen in the advanced industrial societies in which religion, traditional as such, maintains its large hold on the majority of the mind of the population. We can draw this back to the post-colonial context of Canada. According to Pew Research in “5 facts about religion in Canada,” Canadians continue to maintain their religious fervor as a population. More than half, about 55%, of Canadians, based on the Spring 2018 Global Attitudes Survey as reported by Pew Research, identify as Christian, while 29% adhere to the category of “religiously unaffiliated,” 14% identify as “Other,” and 2% don’t know. More precisely, “A declining share of Canadians identify as Christians, while an increasing share say they have no religion – similar to trends in the United States and Western Europe,” “Our most recent survey in Canada, conducted in 2018, found that a slim majority of Canadian adults (55%) say they are Christian, including 29% who are Catholic and 18% who are Protestant. About three-in-ten Canadians say they are either atheist (8%), agnostic (5%) or “nothing in particular” (16%). Canadian census data indicate that the share of Canadians in this “religiously unaffiliated” category rose from 4% in 1971 to 24% in 2011, although it is lowest in Quebec.” With this decline in Christian religious affiliation in Canada, the number of Canadians who identify as Christian should collapse to below simple majority circa some time in 2020/2021.
These demographic declines may produce some forms of belligerent politico-religious identity. In fact, given the evidence, they have done so in the past. Bruce Myers in “Beware the rise of the ‘theo-cons’“ reviewed The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by Marci McDonald. He warned about aspects of Evangelical Christians and Christian Nationalism. He stated:
For a long time disparate and unorganized, conservative-minded Christians in Canada found a single voice in the national debate over same-sex marriage. Their unified opposition galvanized them into a political force to be reckoned with, and one courted more and more by the federal Conservatives.
Inspired by successful examples in the U.S., efforts by so-called Christian nationalists to influence Canadian public policy have increased since Stephen Harper’s Tories took office, McDonald argues. Notably, a growing number of socially conservative Christian organizations have in recent years established a permanent presence in Ottawa. They include such groups as Focus on the Family Canada, the National House of Prayer, and Trinity Western University’s Laurentian Leadership Centre.
These efforts, McDonald says, are aimed at finding their fulfilment in what she calls the “Armageddon factor or the belief that Canada has some particularly significant role to play during the so-called ‘end times.’ “ For those who believe, fulfilling this destiny means transforming Canada into nothing less than a “Bible-based theocracy.”
However, this isn’t a unified trend. In fact, we come to the idea of pluralization of religion in Canadian society with the inclusion of other faiths in the demographic placement of the hole previously filled in the national demographic pie by Christianity. Pew Research reports this is largely due to immigration. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists, comprise 8% of Canadian adults. If the trends continue, or if the adult demographics are indicative of the youth bulge, then the freethought community, and the Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, and Buddhist communities take a larger portion of the upcoming young generations. “Most Canadians” see religion in public life as a waning influence in the country with 64% stipulating that it plays a less important role in the country than in years prior. Canadians are ambivalent as to whether it is a positive or negative net influence on society. In spite of this emotive ambiguity, there are “low levels of government restrictions on religion.” Also, even with these proclaimed religious individuals, or perceived levels of engagement in religious self-identification, few Canadians truly take part, frequently, in the traditional religious practices including prayer daily or worship once per week. Canadians probably can’t be seen, by and large, as a religious people, though can be seen as a largely religious identifying people in the nation. That’s all Pew Research. This can raise some intriguing side questions about the nature, not of religion per se, but, more precisely, of the nature of religious identity based on these demographic trends and the formulations of religious identification.
As the ongoing polarization of the communities of the United States continue apace, some of the similar trends continue in Canadian society with the collapse of Christianity as a significant majority piece of the religious and non-religious demographic pie. What’s the relevance to all of this to Creationism and Intelligent Design? Quite simply, it’s the association betwixt the two and the Evangelical religious universities; as a Canadian, and as a local, these become relevant subject matters. How is, dear reader, there encouragement of Creationism in higher education? Why should it stop? The latter is easier to answer than the former, “It’s wrong, not science, and catastrophically embarrassing on the grounds of any post-secondary institution, private or public, in Canadian society, to many Christians, other faithful people, and the freethought communities (specially so).” To the former, let’s sit down and chat a while, the answers exist, though. Would invitations for talks by creationists or teaching courses friendly to the content make the point? These shouldn’t happen at a respectable institution. In fact, most of the presentations and lectures by creationists happen at churches more than anywhere else based on a national analysis in previous research.
Intelligent Design is rooted in religion. As R.N. Carmona in “The Evidence for Evolution: A Succinct Introduction for Denialists“ said, “The lack of success of these views is literally the tip of the iceberg. That they’re not successful isn’t what determines that they’re pseudoscience. Pick any of the demarcation theories put forth by philosophers of science and you’ll find that creationism and ID don’t meet the requirements to pass as science. Take, for example, Popper’s falsification. Can we falsify the intelligent designer who, according to many ID advocates, is the Judeo-Christian god? What matters here is not whether a naturalist or an atheist can falsify him. What matters is whether ID advocates are willing to attempt falsification of the intelligent designer. Since their view is rooted in religion, we can be reasonably certain that they’re not going to attempt to falsify the intelligent designer.”
It impacts education. Frederika Oosterhoff expressed concern in “Teaching Evolution At Our Schools – Why and How“ about interpretations of Scripture and teaching evolution in Reformed Academic (Canadian Reformed Church). Oosterhoof said, “Evolution can be taught and evaluated in a straightforward manner as a well-established biological theory that has weaknesses as well as strengths. It can also be taught and then explained away – and I am afraid this is done at some of our schools – as lie and deception, the devil’s own work. Related to this second approach is enlisting the help of certain videos and other material provided by young-earth-creationism. As one principal told me, these ‘creation-science’ products are quite popular in our schools. Indeed, young-earth creationism is widely upheld as ‘Reformed doctrine.’ Often, the principal wrote, schools use the material to make evolution look “stupid,” something we can chuckle about…” It’s a sad state of affairs and a depressing commentary of the status of the churches and Christian religious communities in North America.
If humans and all forms of life were created through the evolutionary process—and the evidence for this is very strong—it presents a potential dilemma for Christians. Why would the God who taught us to love the weak and feed the hungry, the God who told us that the meek shall inherit the earth seemingly create humankind through the seemingly heartless process sometimes referred to as “survival of the fittest?”
These are interesting times in evolutionary biology. The discipline has itself been evolving and many of its leaders are recognizing the significance sometimes of cooperation as a dynamic and important component of the evolutionary process. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that a key driving component in the change that has taken place in our lineage—the hominin lineage—for at least three million years has been the importance of individuals being able to work together as a communal unit within small groups. Some scholars would even go so far as to say it is the “Secret of Our Success.” Perhaps—this talk will suggest—biological fitness in our lineage is not that different than the qualities that Jesus laid out as being central to the Christian life. We’ll explore the evidence for this. But more than that, we’ll also explore the question of the nature of divine action in the ongoing history of creation. As Christians we believe that God is an active, even personal presence in our lives through the Holy Spirit. Is there some form of consistency between the God we believe we experience in our individual lives, and the activity of the God who was present and active hundreds of thousand to millions of years ago? This is a key question for Christians to think about and this talk will explore possible answers.
Discussions of the science and theology of creation has been the source of strenuous conflicts among Christians. Darrel Falk and Todd Wood are Christians who hold different positions on creation, and hold them strongly. However, with a shared bond in Christ, through a series of conversations facilitated by The Colossian Forum, they have developed an ability to communicate well, care for one another, and pursue truth and love in edifying ways.
More on Their Co-Authored Book:
In a brief, memoir-like narrative, The Fool and the Heretic tracks the improbable relationship between two scientists who not only hold opposing views on their deeply held views of origins, but believe each is doing serious damage to the church. The book is a deeply personal story told by two respected scientists who hold opposing views on the topic of origins, share a common faith in Jesus Christ, and began a sometimes-painful journey to explore how they can remain in Christian fellowship when each thinks the other is harming the church. To some in the church, anyone who accepts the theory of evolution has rejected biblical teaching and is therefore thought of as a heretic. To many outside the church as well as a growing number of evangelicals, anyone who accepts the view that God created the earth in six days a few thousand years ago must be poorly educated and ignorant–a fool. Todd Wood and Darrel Falk know what it’s like to be thought of, respectively, as a fool and a heretic. This book shares their pain in wearing those labels, but more important, provides a model for how faithful Christians can hold opposing views on deeply divisive issues yet grow deeper in their relationship to each other and to God. (source)
Wood provided some post-event commentary in “Further thoughts from Trinity Western University.” If this isn’t too much, even more, they have a stipulated course, SCS 691 – Creationism Field Trip, i.e., an upper-level course devoted, specifically, to Creationism. Trinity Western University has another course entitled “SCS 503 – Creationism & Christainity [sic] (Korean)” Both are 3-credit courses. There are exceptions, though, outstanding people.
One of my favourite people, Professor Dennis Venema, works at the institution and gives talks entitled “Why I Accept Evolution (and Why You Probably Should As Well).” Stuff like this is great, and should be commended. It’s a difficult balance. To some respectable degree, he pulls it off. The abstract states:
Evolution is both a well-attested scientific theory and an area of science commonly disputed by Christians. Is it “compromise” or “capitulation” for a believer to accept the findings of evolutionary biology? Should Christians fight against evolutionary theory using “creationism” or “Intelligent Design”? Do the arguments of ID proponents such as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and William Lane Craig stand up to scrutiny? Is an evolutionary understanding of creation in conflict with scripture? This talk will address these questions and argue that Christians are better served by adopting evolutionary creationism as a model for human origins.
Venema does a tremendous service in the community because of the presentation of the reality of evolution via natural selection in an environment in which Creationism – young and old – and Intelligent Design have become seen as differing base perspectives on the fundamental nature of biological reality. Each directing attention to the divine hand of God in some form or another. In Christian Week, Venema stated, “Evolution is so well supported, and the evidence for it so compelling, that one cannot reject evolution and claim to have an up-to-date view of science.” Now, You can get obtuse comparisons, as with Michael Gohen in “Science and Scripture: What do we do with conflict?”, who made the explicit claim of the equivalency of validity of the evidence for God in the Bible and in the geological sciences. He concluded in the presentation, “Evolutionary theory is damaging to church’s life especially as it assumes the status of full-blown worldview… Absorption of Scripture into scientific worldview (Scripture must remain final authority!)…”
Unfortunately, as with many Christian perspectives on these matters, they’re simply wrongsolely for the fact of infusion of theology as the explanatory gap in which the ‘gap’ does not amount to a gap at all. Evolution via natural selection filled several mechanism gaps previously handed to God on High as the explanatory filter. Yet, as an Evangelical institution, as part of the same event with Professor Venema, there was the inclusion of a response by Dr. Paul Brown “from an Intelligent Design perspective“ to the presentation by Professor Venema. Here’s the problem, to present an Intelligent Design view gives the illusion of a ‘debate’ in which no debate exists, there’s only one game in the scientific town: evolution via natural selection. It’s a disservice to community and a misrepresentation of the state of the science. Venema is intelligent, conscientious, soft-spoken, and aware.
“As a Christian and a scientist, I have long been perplexed by the desire that many Christians have for apologetics arguments made by those without training or expertise in the area under discussion. Unfortunately, most Christians don’t know enough about evolutionary biology or population genetics to know if the apologetics they are reading is sound,” Professor Venema in BioLogos stated, “One of the reasons for this series . . . is to try to help reverse that trend. Once one understands the relevant science, one is in a much better position to evaluate an apologetics argument as helpful or misguided.”
Venema was announced as the 2019 Scientist in Residence at the Canadian Mennonite University (CMU). In his announcement of the position, he stated, “‘I’m thrilled to be invited to be the Scientist in Residence at CMU for 2019. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for students, and I am honoured to join a prestigious group of prior participants,’ he says. ‘I hope that these conversations can help students along the path to embracing both God’s word and God’s world as a source of reliable revelation to us.’”
Venema ruffled many feathers, too. John Blanton in “The Years of Living Stupidly”stated, “the background is fascinating, but the intent of Evolution News is to demonstrate that Venema is wrong—genetic similarity does not indicate common descent. Evolution Newssometime ago quit identifying authors, but whoever posted this item failed to get the message. Traditionally, Intelligent Design, a concoction of the Discovery Institute, does not rule out common ancestry. These people tend to allow for that, but they also want us to know that natural, and especially random, process are not at work.” They threw Venema over the cliff for attempting modern reconciliation with the science and the updated readings of his scriptures.
Even the Ethics & Public Policy Center’s Michael Cromartie in “Jeff Hardin at the November 2014 Faith Angle Forum” took note of Venema, he stated, “Now, there are challenges with Young Earth creationism, of course… This is Paul Nelson, who is a Young Earth creationist. He is also associated with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington. He says it this way; this is succinctly put: ‘Natural science seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.’ That’s absolutely true. So the evidence, even for a young Earth creationist like Paul, seems to point against it. People who are trying educate Christian students about this encounter an interesting phenomenon. Take Dennis Venema, who is a professor of biology at Trinity Western University up in British Columbia. He said it this way: ‘I’ve seen students willing to discard nearly the entirety of modern science in order to maintain a particular view.’ So one of the challenges from denying the scientific evidence is that you kind of have to walk away from those things that science seems to be telling us.” That which science appears to tell, or, perhaps, explicitly and overwhelmingly supports.
As Amos Young in “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science” observes, “He exposes the challenges that population genetics and research on the genome present to both young earth creationist and intelligent design advocates, addressing specifically the arguments of Michael Behe (whose ideas Venema embraced at one point in his studies as a young and aspiring biologist) and Stephen Meyer, both of whom represent God-of-the-gaps approaches that have waylaid prior apologetic endeavors. Some of the terrain is dense, but evangelical Christians interested in understanding better the science of evolutionary genomics will be richly rewarded for their patience.” Venema is one of my favourite people because of the deeper involvement in the more sophisticated creationist communities, as seen in Intelligent Design, while rejecting them and becoming a science educator and theological bridge divider in the process, where he functions in this capacity in the heart of Evangelicalism in Canada. It’s impressive.
It should be noted. As John Farrell of Forbes in “‘Adam And The Genome’ Offers A New Approach To Counter Creationism” states, Dennis Venema grew up in a conservative religious home, where the Bible was considered the literal truth of the creator of the human species. So, Venema is coming out of this steep involvement in Christianity. A formulation of Christian doctrine and faith, which he would, eventually, reject and/or adapt to modern biological science. Farrell quotes Venema, “Put most simply, DNA evidence indicates that humans descend from a large population because we, as a species, are so genetically diverse in the present day that a large ancestral population is needed to transmit that diversity to us. To date, every genetic analysis estimating ancestral population sizes has agreed that we descend from a population of thousands, not a single ancestral couple. Even though many of these methods are independent of one another, all methods employed to date agree that the human lineage has not dipped below several thousand individuals for the last three million years or more—long before our lineage was even remotely close to what we would call ‘human.’”
Colleagues argue for a framework incorporating a “secular science” ideational divide with, by logical derivation, the idea of theological science on the other side, at times, which doesn’t hold water. For example, R. Scott Clark in “Revisiting the URC Creation Decision“ talks about the Bylogos commentary of Professor of Mathematics, Dr. John Byl, of Trinity Western University. He presents an intelligent, articulate, and engaging commentary on the subject matter. Yet, when reviewing Byl’s commentary in “The Framework Hypothesis and Church Unity,” all this seems as if a huge waste of time and space. These wouldn’t have to be major issues to tackle, except in the light of fundamentalist theology, as such, usually irreconcilable with evolutionary theory or modern biological science. As Byl, in the original article, states, “Church unity should be based on mutual faithfulness to Scripture. The Framework Hypothesis denies the plain sense of Scripture (cf. Gen.1, Ex.20:11, Ex.31:17) and introduces a new hermeneutic that interprets the Bible in light of secular science,” which is – ahem – unfortunate. There’s no secular science; unless, your religion is anti-science, where the implication is the religion incorporates anti-scientific ideas (forms of Creationism and Intelligent Design) leading to the clear irreconcilability.
Sometimes, the waters are so muddy, mixed, and confused as to leave one baffled at otherwise intelligent and thoughtful commentary dip into the heady waters of parsing further non-sense from the first non-sense. Derivative non-sense is still non-sense. Robert Stackpole presents part of the fundamental issue, not by statement but, by the implication of the statement about evolution and Creationism, and Intelligent Design. He, in “Reflecting on Creation and the Cross with our Evangelical Friends,” states:
Well, in a nutshell, I agree that Young-Earth Creationism, well-intentioned as it is, is indeed biblically unnecessary and scientifically very problematic — and I am afraid that pursuing this position is one of the things that has tarnished the reputation of Evangelicals as being anti-science (or at least, failing to take science very seriously). But what the Catholic Evolutionist party-line rarely adds is that Young Earth Creationism is not the only other option. There are other forms of creationism which I found to be far more convincing, both on biblical and on scientific grounds — such as Old Earth or Progressive Creationism — positions which have been explored and developed in depth and detail by some Evangelical scholars, and that actually fit remarkably well with the findings of the new “Intelligent Design” movement in science and philosophy. As a result, I spent a couple of years researching this option, and co-authored a book on the subject with an Evangelical biochemist from Trinity Western University, Dr. Paul Brown. Entitled More Than Myth: seeking the full truth about Genesis, Creation and Evolution (Chartwell Press, 2014). Our book is an ecumenical milestone, as far as we know: the first ever collaboration on this subject by Catholic and Evangelical scholars.
He looks at all the wrong ideas, fervently, including “Young-Earth Creationism,” ‘Old Earth Creationism,’ “Progressive Creationism,” and “Intelligent Design.” His world becomes more complex than necessary and leads to a series of incorrect pathways of thoughts in terms of coming to some approximation of the truth. (He wrote this mentioned book in collaboration with Dr. Paul Brown from Trinity Western University.) The trends of promoting pseudoscience continues in connection with this particular Evangelical Christian University.
There is good work by some other individuals, too, not simply Venema, e.g., Professor Craig D. Allert (Religious Studies) of Trinity Western University produced the book entitled Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (2002). According to Philip J. Long in “Book Review: Craig D. Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One,” he draws heavily on resources from Answers in Genesis (AiG), Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI), i.e., several of the major creationist organizations mentioned above. He provides reason to critique them.
Even politically, this pops up. Peter O’Neil in the National Post reported on this in “Canadians who believe in creation ‘gagged,’ B.C. MP charges.” Including Independent MP James Lunney, he considered millions of Canadians who are creationists as gagged. He stated, “I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled… To not respond is to validate my accusers and, worse yet, imply that I lack the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe. … That is not a legacy I wish to leave behind.” The Canadian Press in “Tory says creationism only ‘one issue’“ stated, “Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory is downplaying his policy on bringing private religious schools into the public system after stirring up controversy with comments on teaching creationism. A day after Tory said creationism could be taught in public religious schools, he says voters shouldn’t just judge him on the basis of his proposal to fund faith-based schools.” It emerged over and over again. It continues, too. If you don’t see it, please look closer.
The anti-scientific is not only political, but educational. David R. Wheeler/David Wheeler in The Atlantic article entitled “Old Earth, Young Minds: Evangelical Homeschoolers Embrace Evolution“ said, “But whatever their reason for homeschooling, evangelical families who embrace modern science are becoming more vocal about it — and are facing the inevitable criticism that comes with that choice.” So, there can be pushback within specific sectors, including large domains of Creationism with American society. It’s like this in several domains. The churches have been bastions of furthering this pseudoscience. While, the Canadian religious institutions, particularly Christian, have been obstinate in furthering anti-science agendas. Yet, it takes individuals like Venema to almost single-handedly provide a bulwark against these onslaughts against proper scientific education. The belief in the incredible takes a fantastic ability to parse one’s mind apart from a unifying framework; it represents a psychologically confused state. These issues are historical, but these concerns are active, present, and will continue into the future.
There have been issues with academic freedom too, in religious private schools, which will be covered in another article.
[1] “Freethought for the Small Towns: A Case Study,” (2020), in large part, states:
In its recent history, as a starter example, there has been some predictable commentary flowing in the pens and notifications. One from Derek Bisset exhibited a particularly interesting article entitled “There Are Atheists in the Church“ as recent as August 4, 2015. Not necessarily a rare view, it’s more a common sentiment based on the trend line of history and the adaptations for the modern world with Liberal Theology and the tenuous status of some foundational tenets with the continual onslaughts of modern empiricism…
…Issue 48 of the Fort Langley Evangelical Free Church from 2017, they describe an event with The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. An organization – The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, akin to the Templeton Foundation, devoted to strange attempts at bridging religion and science. Although, the Templeton Foundation comes with a huge cash prize. That’s motivation enough for some. The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation focuses on science and a “life-giving Christian tradition” with a statement of faith (common in Christian organizations throughout the country):
We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God’s creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.
These four statements of faith spell out the distinctive character of the CSCA, and we uphold them in every activity and publication of the Affiliation.
As implicitly admitted in the “Commission on Creation” of the American Scientific Affiliation taken by The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation for presentation to its national public, some members of the affiliation will adhere to a “Young-Earth (Recent Creation) View,” “Old-Earth (Progressive Creation) View,” “Theistic Evolution (Continuous Creation, Evolutionary Creation) View,” or “Intelligent Design View.” There’s the problem right there. Only one real game in town, evolution via natural selection… This becomes four wrong views plus one right position with the four incorrect views bad in different ways or to different degrees, i.e., four theological views and one scientific view. In other words, the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, by its own claims and standards, amounts to a theological affiliation, not a “Scientific” affiliation. It’s false advertising if not outright lying by title and content.
Anyway, the Issue 48 newsletter of the Fort Langley Evangelical Free Church presented the event entitled “Science, Religion, & the New Atheism,” by Dr. Stephen Snobelen, who is an Associate Professor of the History of Science and Technology Programme at University of King’s College, Halifax. This is common too… In short, the only places, or the vast majority of places, to present these ideas are churches and religious institutions. Outside of those, these theological hypotheses posed as scientific aren’t taken seriously or, generally, are seen as a hysterical joke when posed as science rather than theology. Some, like Zak Graham in “Atheism is simply a lack of belief,” get the point published in The Langley Times. That seems like an uncommon stance in the wider community.
As Brad Warner notes in a short confessional post in Fellowship Pacific, he came to the Christian religion in university… Even in some indications of the counselling professionals in the area, as an individual case study, statements emerge as in Alex Kwee, Ph.D., R.Psych. stating, “A distinctive of my approach lies in the fact that I am a Christian. The practice of psychotherapy is never value-neutral; even the most ostensibly ‘objective’ of counsellors must possess certain irreducible value propositions—even atheism or secular humanism are value systems that cannot be proven ‘right’ one way or another.” Note, he makes Christianity or Christian identity as part of the approach, as I am certain of the same for countless others in the area and around the country…
…The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 or the DSM-5 rejected sex addiction for inclusion in 2013. There’s no such thing as sex addiction as a formal psychological construct; sex addiction is a theological construct, i.e., a pseudoscientific and worldview construct posed as psychological… As Dr. Darrel Ray in “Extensive Interview with Dr. Darrel Ray on Secular Therapy and Recovering From Religion“ stated:
So, #2 behind the fear of hell are issues around their sexuality and things like, “I know it’s not wrong to masturbate, but I still feel guilty,” “I am a sex addict because I look at porn.” There’s tons of evidence that the most religious people self-identify the most as “sex addicts.” Not to mind, there is no such thing as sex addiction. There’s no way to define it. I have argued with atheists that have been atheists for 20 years who say that they are sex addicts. Help me understand, how did you get that diagnosis? “My mother-in-law diagnosed me” [Laughing]. “I look at porn once or twice a week.” I do not care if you look at porn once or twice an hour. You are still not a sex addict. So, get over that. You may have other issues. You may have some compulsions. You may have some fear of driving the issue. But it almost always comes down to early childhood religious training, as we spoke about earlier. So, people are simply responding to the programming. Even though, they are atheist, secular, agnostic. I do not care what you call yourself. You are still dealing with the programming. Sometimes, you can go an entire lifetime with a guilt, a shame, a fear, rooted in religion.
…It’s like this on issue and after issue. Fundamentalist Christian universities and theological beliefs in areas infect towns, attract similarly minded individuals from around the fundamentalist Christian diaspora, and reduce the amount of proper science in professional lives and the critical thinking in the public…
…Fort Langley culture follows from the culture of Trinity Western University on a number of qualitative-observational metrics… One TWU is one LGBTI community group around campus without formal affiliation (“*We are run completely independently from and bare no formal affiliation with Trinity Western University”), though small, for individual students who may be struggling on or around campus. While others outside the formal TWU community, and in the extended fundamentalist Christian community, and taking the idea of “think differently” differently – as in “think the same, as always,” Richard Peachey is as fast as proclaiming the literal Word of God Almighty with homosexuality as an affront to God and fundamentally a sin in His sight. In spite of this, at one time or another, based on Canadian reportage and some names in the current listings, Matthew Wigmore, Bryan Sandberg, and David Evans-Carlson (co-founders of One TWU), and Nate/Nathan Froelich, Kelsey Tiffin, Robynne Healey, and others in the current crop – Kieran Wear, Elisabeth Browning, Queenie Rabanes, and Micah Bron – stand firm against some former mandatory community covenant standards either as supports for themselves or as allies who have been negatively impacted by the Community Covenant. A minority gender and sexual identity is completely healthy and normal. If the theology rejects this, then the theology is at odds with reality, not the students’ sense of themselves, who they love, and their identities, or the science. I agree with them and stand far more with them…
…Congratulations for making it this far, but freethought extends into other areas too, of the local culture, as with hundreds of towns in this country, whether colonics/colonhydrotherapy, aromatherapy, chiropractory, acupuncture, reflexology, naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, or simply a culture of praying for help with an ailment (which is one overlap with the religious fundamentalist community and the reduced capacity for critical thought). Colonics/colonhydrotherapy is marginally practiced within some of the town in Fort Langley Colonics. Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D. in “Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More“ stated rather starkly…
In 2009, Dr. Edzard Ernst tabulated the therapeutic claims he found on the Web sites of six “professional organizations of colonic irrigations.” The themes he found included detoxification, normailzation [sic] of intestinal function, treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and weight loss. He also found claims elated to asthma, menstrual irregularities, circulatory disorders, skin problems, and improvements in energy levels. Searching Medline and Embase, he was unable to find a single controlled clinical trial that substantiated [sic] any of these claims.
On aromatherapy, this one is a softball. One can find this in the True Aromatherapy Products and Spa (TAP) store. As William H. London, in an article entitled “Essential Considerations About Aromatherapy“ in Skeptical Inquirer, describes the foundations of aromatherapy as follows, “The practice of administering plant-derived essential oils on the skin, via inhalation of vapors, or internally via ingestion for supposed healing power is commonly called aromatherapy. The oils for aromatherapy are described as ‘essential’ to refer to the volatile, aromatic components that some people describe as the ‘essence’ of the plant source, which represents the plant’s ‘life force,’ ‘spirit,’ or soul. Aromatherapy is thus rooted in vitalism…” RationalWiki states:
Like most woo, aromatherapy starts with observable, real effects of smells on humans, and extrapolates and exaggerates into a whole range of treatments from the effective, to the banal, to the outright ridiculous…
…To chiropractory, it is widely regarded as a pseudoscience with either no efficacy or negative effects on the patient or the client. Fort Family Chiropractic [Ed. Lana Patterson and Shaun Patterson] and Evergreen Chiropractic [Ed. Mike Titchener.] are the two main businesses devoted to some practice of chiropractory. As Science-Based Medicine in its “Chiropractic” entry states:
Chiropractic was invented by D. D. Palmer, Sep 18, 1895 when he adjusted the spine of a deaf man and allegedly restored his hearing (a claim that is highly implausible based on what we know of anatomy). Based on this one case, Palmer decided that all disease was due to subluxation: 95% to subluxations of the spine and 5% to subluxations of other bones.
The rationale for chiropractic hinges on three postulates:
Bones are out of place
Bony displacements cause nerve interference
Manipulating the spine replaces the bones, removing the nerve interference and allowing Innate (a vitalistic life force) to restore health.
There is no credible evidence to support any of these claims…
…according to the usual standards of medicine, acupuncture does not work.
Let me explain what I mean by that. Clinical research can never prove that an intervention has an effect size of zero. Rather, clinical research assumes the null hypothesis, that the treatment does not work, and the burden of proof lies with demonstrating adequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis. So, when being technical, researchers will conclude that a negative study “fails to reject the null hypothesis.”…
…In layman’s terms, acupuncture does not work – for anything.
This has profound clinical, ethical, scientific, and practical implications. In my opinion humanity should not waste another penny, another moment, another patient – any further resources on this dead end. We should consider this a lesson learned, cut our losses, and move on.
…Another issue practice is reflexology, as seen in Health Roots & Reflexology [Ed. Lisa Kako, Alison Legge.]. Quackwatch concludes, “Reflexology is based on an absurd theory and has not been demonstrated to influence the course of any illness… Claims that reflexology is effective for diagnosing or treating disease should be ignored…” …As Dr. Harriet Hall in “Modern Reflexology: Still As Bogus As Pre-Modern Reflexology“ said, “Reflexology is an alternative medicine system that claims to treat internal organs by pressing on designated spots on the feet and hands; there is no anatomical connection between those organs and those spots. Systematic reviews in 2009 and 2011 found no convincing evidence that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition. Quackwatch and the NCAHF agree that reflexology is a form of massage that may help patients relax and feel better temporarily, but that has no other health benefits…”
…A larger concoction of bad science and medicine comes from the Integrated Health Clinic[Ed. Kaiden Maxwell, Gurdev Parmar, Karen Parmar, Michelle Willis, Karen McGee, Erik Boudreau, Adam Davison, Nicole Duffee, Erin Rurak, Alyssa Fruson, Alanna Rinas, Sarah Soles, Wayne Phimister, and Alfred Man. Many, not all, in part or in whole, trained in and practicing pseudosciences – pseudomedicine – found in acupuncture, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, the Bowen technique, and so on. One can integrate several pseudosciences to formulate a clinic for ‘medicine.’ However, all this amounts to an elaborate integration of pseudosciences, an integrated pseudoscience clinic, whether in a quaint fundamentalist religious community village or not.] devoted, largely, to naturopathy/naturopathic medicine (based on a large number of naturopaths on staff) and traditional Chinese medicine with manifestations in IV/chelation therapy, neural therapy, detox, hormone balancing & thermography, anthroposophical medicine, LRHT/hyperthermia, Bowen technique, among others. We’ll run through those first two, as the references to them are available in the resources, in the manner before. Scott Gavura in “Naturopathy vs. Science: Facts edition” stated:
Naturopaths claim that they practice based on scientific principles. Yet examinations of naturopathic literature, practices and statements suggest a more ambivalent attitude. NDhealthfacts.org neatly illustrates the problem with naturopathy itself: Open antagonism to science-based medicine, and the risk of harm from “integrating” these practices into the practice of medicine… Because good medicine isn’t based on invented facts and pre-scientific beliefs – it must be grounded in science. And naturopathy, despite the claims, is anything but scientific.
Naturopathy is often, if not always, practiced in combination with other forms of “alternative” health practices... Claims that these and practices such as colonic irrigation or coffee enemas “detoxify” the body or enhance the immune system or promote “homeostasis,” “harmony,” “balance,” “vitality,” and the like are exaggerated and not backed up by sound research.
…Now, onto Traditional Chinese Medicine or TCM, or Chinese Medicine or CM, also coming out of the Integrated Health Clinic, RationalWiki notes some of the dangerous, if not disgusting to a North American and Western European palette, ingredients:
CM ingredients can range from common plants, such as dandelion, persimmon, and mint, to weird or even dangerous stuff. Some of the more revolting (from a Western standpoint) things found in TCM include genitals of various animals (including dogs, tigers, seals, oxen, goats, and deer), bear bile (commonly obtained by means of slow, inhumane extraction methods), and (genuine) snake oil… Urine, feces, placenta and other human-derived medicines were traditionally used but some may no longer be in use.
Some of the dangerous ingredients include lead, calomel (mercurous chloride), cinnabar (red mercuric sulfide), asbestos (including asbestiform actinolite, sometimes erroneously called aconite) realgar (arsenic), and birthwort (Aristolochia spp.). Bloodletting is also practiced. Bizarrely, lead oxide, cinnabar, and calomel are said to be good for detoxification. Lead oxide is also supposed to help with ringworms, skin rashes, rosacea, eczema, sores, ulcers, and intestinal parasites, cinnabar allegedly helps you live longer, and asbestos…
Dr. Arthur Grollman, a professor of pharmacological science and medicine at Stony Brook University in New York, in an article entitled “Chinese medicine gains WHO acceptance but it has many critics” is quoted, on the case of TCM or CM acceptance at the World Health Organization, saying, “It will confer legitimacy on unproven therapies and add considerably to the costs of health care… Widespread consumption of Chinese herbals of unknown efficacy and potential toxicity will jeopardize the health of unsuspecting consumers worldwide.” On case after case, we can find individual practices or collections of practices of dubious effect if not ill-effect in the town. Indeed, this follows from one of the earliest points about the infusion of supernatural thinking or pseudoscientific integration of praxis into the community, whether fear of liberal theology, encouragement of pseudobiology, prejudice and bigotry against the LGBTI members of community, pseudo-psychological diagnoses passed off as real psychological and behavioural issues while simply grounded in theological bias and false assertions as psychological constructs, or in the whole host of bad medical and science practices seen in “colonics/colonhydrotherapy, aromatherapy, chiropractory, acupuncture, reflexology, naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine.”
[2] The current Council of the Township of Langley consists of Cllr. Petrina Arnason, Cllr. David Davis, Cllr. Steve Ferguson, Cllr. Margaret Kunst, Cllr. Bob Long, Cllr. Kim Richter, Cllr. Blair Whitmarsh, Cllr. Eric Woodward and Mayor Jack Froese.
[3] Canadians’ and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism in the Matters of the Origins and Evolution states:
Canadian Mennonite University invited Professor Dennis Venema from Trinity Western University as the Scientist in Residence. Venema, at the time, stated, “I’m thrilled to be invited to be the Scientist in Residence at CMU for 2019. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for students, and I am honoured to join a prestigious group of prior participants… I hope that these conversations can help students along the path to embracing both God’s word and God’s world as a source of reliable revelation to us.” Venema defends the view of evolutionary theory within a framework of “evolutionary creationism,” which appears more a terminologically diplomatic stance than evolution via natural selection or the code language within some religious commentary as things like or almost identical to “atheistic evolution” or “atheistic evolutionism.” He provides education on the range of religious views on offer with a more enticing one directed at evolution via natural selection. The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation provides a space for countering some of the young earth geologist and young earth creationist viewpoints, as with the advertisement of the Dr. Jonathan Baker’s lecture, or in pamphlets produced on geological (and other) sciences.
He works in a tough area within a community not necessarily accepting of the evolution via natural selection view of human beings with a preference for special creation, creationism, or intelligent design. Much of the problems post-genetics as a proper discipline of scientific study and the discovery of evolution via natural selection comes from the evangelical Christian communities’ sub-cultures who insist on a literal and, hence, fundamentalist interpretation or reading of their scriptures or purported holy texts. Another small item of note. Other universities have writers in residence. A Mennonite university hosts a scientist in residence. Science becomes the abnorm rather than the norm. The King’s University contains one reference in the search results within a past conference. However, this may be a reference to “creation” rather than “creationism” as creation and more “creation” speaking to the theological interpretations of genesis without an attempt at an explicit scientific justification of mythology.
By far, the largest number of references to “creationism” came from the largest Christian, and evangelical Christian, university in the country located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada called Trinity Western University, which, given its proximity and student body population compared to the local town, makes Fort Langley – in one framing – and Trinity Western University the heart of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in Canada. Trinity Western University teaches a “SCS 503 – Creationism & Christainity [sic] (Korean)” course and a “SCS 691 – Creationism Field Trip” course. They hosted a lecture on Stephen Hawking, science, and creation, as stated:
In light of Steven Hawking’s theories, is there enough reason for theists to believe in the existence of God and the creation of the world?
This lecture will respond to Hawking’s views and reflect on the relationship between science, philosophy and theology.
Speaker: Dr. Yonghua Ge, Director of Mandarin Theology Program at ACTS Seminaries (Ibid.)
They hosted another event on evolution and young earth creationism:
All are welcome to attend, Public Lecture, hosted by TWU’s ‘Science, Faith, and Human Flourishing: Conversations in Community” Initiative, supported by Fuller Seminary, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences, and the Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, “Evolutionary and Young-Earth Creationism: Two Separate Lectures” (Darrel Falk, “Evolution, Creation and the God Who is Love” and Todd Wood, “The Quest: Understanding God’s Creation in Science and Scripture”)
Dirk Büchner, Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University, states an expertise in “Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac (grammar and syntax), Hellenistic Greek (grammar and lexicography), The Septuagint. Of more popular interest: The Bible and Social Justice, and Creationism, Scientism and the Bible: why there should be no conflict between mainstream science and Christian faith.” Professor Büchner holds an expert status in “creationism.” A non-conflict between mainstream science and the Christian faith would mean the significantly reduced status of the intervention of the divine in the ordinary life of Christians. He remains one locus of creationism in the Trinity Western University environment. Dr. Paul Yang’s biography states, “Paul Yang has over twenty years teaching experience, lecturing on physics and physics education, as well as Christian worldview and creationism. He has served as the director of the Vancouver Institute for Evangelical Wordlview [Sic] as well as the Director of the Christian.” Yang holds memberships or affiliations with the American Scientific Affiliation, Creation Research Society, and Korea Association of Creation Research. Dr. Alister McGrath and Dr. Michael Shermer had a dialogue moderated by a panel with Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D., Jaime Palmer-Hague, Ph.D., and Myron Penner, Ph.D. in 2017 at Trinity Western University.
All exist as probably Christian front organizations with the pretense as scientific and Christian organizations. One can see the patterns repeat themselves over and over again. Christian ‘science’ amounts to creationism, as noted before. Yang, with more than 20 years, exists as a pillar of creationist teaching, thinking, and researching within Canada and at Trinity Western University…
…Other cases of the more sophisticated and newer brands of Christianity with a similar theology, but more evolutionary biology – proper – incorporated into them exist in some of the heart of parts of evangelical Christianity in Canada. Professor Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and his colleague Dave Navarro (Pastor, South Langley Church) continued a conversation on something entitled “evolutionary creation,” not “creation science” or “intelligent design” as Venema’s orientation at Trinity Western University continues to focus on the ways in which the evolutionary science can mix with a more nuanced and informed Christian theological worldview within the Evangelical tradition. One can doubt the fundamental claim, not in the Bible but, about the Bible as the holy God-breathed or divinely inspired book of the creator of the cosmos, but one can understand the doubt about the base claim about the veracity of the Bible leading to doubt about the contents and claims in the Bible – fundamental and derivative…
…A more small-time politician, Dr. Darrell Furgason, ran for public office in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada. Furgason lectured at Trinity Western University and earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies. Dr. Furgason claims inclusivity for all while ignoring standard protocol in science, i.e., asserting religious views in written work, “Theistic evolution is a wrong view of Genesis, as well as history, and biology. Adam & Eve were real people….who lived in real history….around 6000 years ago.” ..
…The main fundamentalist Evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, university, found in Canadian society is Trinity Western University, where Professor Dennis Venema was the prominent individual referenced as the source of progress in the scientific discussions within intellectual and, in particular, formal academic discussions and teaching. Trinity Western University operates near Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada in Langley. The main feature case for Story comes from a city near to Trinity Western University in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Story considers this the single most controversial case of creationism in the entire country…
…John Sutherland, of Trinity Western University, chaired the Abbotsford school board of the time, which, potentially, shows some relationship between the surrounding areas and the school curriculum and creationism axis – as you may recall Trinity Western University sits in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada, next to the city of Abbotsford, British Columbia as an evangelical Christian university. “The Minister agreed with Goodman and the Teachers’ Association and sent a letter requesting assurances from the board that they were adhering to the provincial curriculum…”, Story explained, “…The Minister’s requests were not directly acknowledged, but Sutherland was vocal about the issue in local media outlets. He accused the Minister of religious prejudice by attempting to remove creationism from the district.”
Darrel Falk is Senior Advisor for Dialog and former president of BioLogos. He is also Emeritus Professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego where he has been based since 1988. He is a graduate of Simon Fraser University, with a doctorate in genetics from the University of Alberta and postdoctoral fellowships at the University of British Columbia and the University of California, Irvine. He began his career on the faculty at Syracuse University where he was tenured prior to his move into Christian higher education. Dr. Falk has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities, churches, and some seminaries. Besides his extensive writing at the BioLogos website, he is the author of Coming to Peace with Science (InterVarsity Press) and the forthcoming book with Todd C. Wood, The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Dialog about Creation and Evolution (Zondervan).
Todd C Wood is a Michigan native and graduate of Liberty University (Summa Cum Laude). He earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia in 1999, where he specialized in computational biology and protein evolution. He then did a post-doc on the rice genome at the Clemson University Genomics Institute. He spent 13 years at Bryan College and launched Core Academy of Science in 2013. Core Academy is a creation ministry that nurtures the next generation of Christ-like creation researchers to explore the hardest problems in creation. He is an expert in comparative genomics and computational systematics. He has authored or co-authored more than 40 technical papers, including papers in Science, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, and Answers Research Journal. He is the author or co-author of six books, including The Quest: Exploring Creation’s Hardest Problems and The Fool and the Heretic, written with Darrel Falk and Rob Barrett. In addition to teaching high school Bible and theology classes at Rhea County Academy, Todd also wrote the Introduction to Science textbook used in the ninth grade science class. His current research focuses on the created kinds of insects, floral mutations in trillium, and creationist interpretations of human fossils. He was featured in the 2017 documentary Is Genesis History? In his spare time, he likes to make pie and watch classic movies.
The congress recognising the world-wide population problem as a common concern of mankind and of continuing importance to humanist and ethical culturists, since without population planning welfare policies are futile and human dignity is disastrously imperilled, urges the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations to consider how best to provide that men and women everywhere shall have essential information on family planning, as their due and as due to the generation to be born.
IHEU congress 1952
‘Family planning’, Humanists International, World Humanist Congress, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1952
Humanists are all about living a rational, considered and emotionally fulfilling life. Some humanists want families while others do want them. When it comes to doing this, the humanist way will in most cases involve some form of planning for a family.
When societies do not have a formulation of how to plan properly for a family, in terms of educational needs, financial necessities, social services, healthcare, and such, children will be more likely to grow up in poverty.
By poverty, I mean the lack of basic and essential services for the other, higher-order aspects of someone’s life coming to fruition. Without those, life somehow loses its zest, meaning, and fulfillment.
So, even though, this is a short policy taken in 1952; it’s crucial when making an alignment with the values of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations and the necessity for family planning.
I love the end of this one. It sets a stage for considering not only those who are planning on having a family, but on providing a context in which a child will, tacitly, be more wanted and the basics for the this child’s life will be more probably provided for them.
Both humanism and secularism have in common the pursuit, for all people, of ways in which they can live peacefully together, irrespective of ethnic or social origin, religious or philosophical opinions:
By respecting the [in]alienable dignity of each human being;
By creating, for all, the ways to attain the basic rights, such as freedom of thought and opinion, freedom of association and movement….the right to health care, to peace, to education….
Humanists know that their message still has not been sufficiently heard and that it is often distorted. They should therefore unite their efforts around a few essential principles:
Freedom of conscience constitutes the key to other freedoms;
Beliefs, religious or not, should neither be obligatory nor prohibited and should never stop people from respecting others who do not share them;
A common code based on respect, meeting, and discussion will become vital in societies where the differences of lifestyle and opinion will be more marked. The only alternative to ethnic hatred and to confrontation between communities must be one based on social and economical justice, on humanism and secularism.
With a view to such a future, we must search together in every nation, according to its history and its culture, for the best solutions. Above all we must build justice, democracy and solidarity everywhere through the citizenship of everyone. The humanists of IHEU have committed themselves to the pursuit of these common objectives in all of the countries where they live and work.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) was the original identiy of Humanists International.
The first policy was under the title “Humanism and secularism.” When we see the divides in much of the discourses of humanist communities around focus on the separation of government and religion, or something more, this has to do with modern sensibilities and the experimentation with newer concerns in relation to humanist values.
It also has to do with the degree to which secularism, as a stance, was foundational to Humanism forming in the contemporary period in the first place. Some want a re-emphasis on this original value. Others want an emphasis on newer, experimentral concerns more. That’s the rub happening in some humanist discourses now.
This first policy starts immediately and directly on the ‘common pursuit’ of Humanism and secularism. The basic idea is the integration of the concern for humanist values plus those with only secularism as their concern for peaceful coexistence. As this came after WWI and before WWII, it’s wild.
All the same stipulations of values as we see here today with freedom of thought, opinion, association, movement, and the like, are right there in the first formal policy of Humanists International. Even though, we make the same arguments today; we can acknowledge the inevitable here.
The difficulty of arguing for moral truisms is evident when religion is entirely dominant and when those without religious affiliation are ascendant. These values must be fought for continuously. If they do not come from on high, then they must be maintained from below.
Even when they are fought for then, we must realize further obvious items. Namely, the fact of “distortions” of the humanist message. Even now, the humanist ethos conveyed to a wider public may garner some margin of furtherance ofsupport. However, the range of distortions exist and must be gauged individually.
If you are making an argument for freedom of conscience, you could be seen as advocating a solipsistic ethic. In that, if moral consciences did not come from God, who are you to claim that you have a freedom of conscience? These will be misrepresentations of the style of them. Think about them beforehand and be prepared for them; you can calmly dismantle, respond, and educate in turn. Humanists who impress me in this regard are people like Carl Sagan or Babu Gogineni — calm, considered people.
The first policy reiterates the need for a non-coercion, essentially, in the development or adherence to some basic beliefs. This is valuable. Many religious traditions stipulate values too — implementation may be another deal altogether.
Dr. Sam Harris has divided some of the humanist communities around critiques in religion or position on free will, or an emphasis on Islam over other religions. Yet, a major point made during the height of the New Atheist movement is apparenlty uncontested: We have either conversation or violence.
Early contemporary humanists knew this. They stated a need for a “common code based on respect, meeting, and discussion.” The digital revolution was decades away. However, they did not mention physical meetings. The only world,as I have noted in some other writings for Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky, can provide a degree of freedom and community — a space — for humanists. It reduces possibilities for dogma because you’re confronted with other ways of being.
This first policy was all about democracy and justice through consideration of secularism, emphasizing democratic values. These common pursuits in 1933 are the common pursuits of humanists all over the world today.
[Ed. Unless, of course, the 1933 was an error for 1993 as a typo. The larger point still stands, though. Next policy statement!]
Trinity Western University v Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, Trinity Western University v The Law Society of Upper Canada (2015), and Trinity Western University v Law Society of British Columbia (2015), led to the Supreme Court of Canada case (2017-18).
Trinity Western University lost the case 7-2. In the official documentation, one can find quotations relevant to the known interpretations external to Trinity Western University of the Community Covenant.
The refusal to approve the proposed law school means that members of the TWU religious community are not free to impose those religious beliefs on fellow law students, since they have an inequitable impact and can cause significant harm. The LSBC chose an interpretation of the public interest in the administration of justice which mandates access to law schools based on merit and diversity, not exclusionary religious practices. The refusal to approve TWU’s proposed law school prevents concrete, not abstract, harms to LGBTQ people and to the public in general. The LSBC’s decision ensures that equal access to the legal profession is not undermined and prevents the risk of significant harm to LGBTQ people who feel they have no choice but to attend TWU’s proposed law school. It also maintains public confidence in the legal profession, which could be undermined by the LSBC’s decision to approve a law school that forces LGBTQ people to deny who they are for three years to receive a legal education.
The “concrete” and not merely abstract harm became the focus there. All this coming from the locale of the Township of Langley. This happened for years. Some of these formulations of Christian theology and morality come to the public spotlight more than others.
Yet, surprisingly, its demographics, even by 2011 Metro Vancouver data, contained 43,680 individuals without a formal religious affiliation out of 103,145 citizens in the Township of Langley, so 42.3% as of 2011 without a formal religious affiliation.
More than 2 out of every 5 don’t adhere to any formal religious system. If the municipal data reflects national trends since 2011, then the proportion should be higher than 42.3%. Which, to me, was surprising, probably to many others, indeed, the 2018 inaugural Council session followed relatively normal procedure with a prayer by Pastor Derrick Hamre of Christian Life Assembly[1], which is a part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada(PAOC).
One would gather a different sense of the demographics with prayers opening inaugural Council meetings if new to it. Obviously, if examining the prayer with reference to “Heavenly Father,” “pray,” “prayer,” “blessing,” “bless, “Christ,” and “amen,” this means, not only a prayer but, a particular religion’s prayer, a Christian prayer.
As per the Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015, SCC 16 [2015] 2 S.C.R. 3 decision, from “2015,” was violated, after personally sending a letter of concern[2] and receiving a prompt response from a municipal representative, I have been earlier informed inaugural prayers are no longer going to take place at Council meetings in the Township of Langley; and the same with other prayers at Council meetings.
Some of my previous coverage in the Township of Langley, British Columbia, and Canada, covered a number of the problematic contents of the municipality, the province, and the society, including homeopathy, naturopathy, astrologers, mediums, psychics, William Branham’s “The Message” theology (particularly Cloverdale Bibleway), and (most often Christian) creationism[3].
In the moment of COVID-19, these become further layered concerns because of the culture of the denial of scientific skepticism or scientific rationalism. In this sense, the idea of science as something to inform policy decision-making and political maneuvers, rather than faith, is important.
Indeed, as one may see with the news coverage throughout the United States, there’s a sense of denial of science and affirmation of the power and glory of their God to protect them. Many pastors made these open claims.
“Latin America’s evangelical churches hard hit by pandemic,” by the Associated Press, reported in Bolivia “some 100 evangelical pastors have died,” in Nicaragua (according to the Nicaraguan Evangelical Alliance) “at least 44 pastors have died since March,” and so it goes; these are replicated stories elsewhere.
Pastors reject the sound medical and scientific public health recommendations, even demands of the government led by experts. They put their congregations, or “flock,” and themselves at risk. Following this, many die, sadly and unfortunately, but predictably due to theological assertions -wrongheadedness.
Similarly, when this happens in the local context, this becomes important. RiversideCalvary Chapel in Walnut Grove, British Columbia, has been making some of the news, lately, which, so happens, exists in the Township of Langley. The same Langley under the aegis of the aforementioned councillors and mayor.
Cpl. Holly Largy found an in-person service in-progress. This raises a number of questions. How many other quiet breaking of rules happen in the Township of Langley, the “Bible Belt,” based on religious commitments? Everyone else follows the law.
Thus, everyone collectively pays for tax exemptions of some buildings over others. Why are those harming the commonwealth with breaking public health orders receiving tax breaks where others may not get the tax breaks, exemptions, while following the same rules of everyone else?
Do these amount to particular benefits for some religious groups and not for others with the presumptive status of benefit to the general public for tax exempt status of some churches explicitly rejecting the common good via holding services in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic?
Largy noted the option to disperse was given to the congregants and leadership. This was declined; a fine was issued.
Lead Pastor Brent Smith stated, “We have a team of lawyers that are preparing a statement and will be representing us on these matters… We certainly are not looking for a fight, we just believe there has been many inconsistencies with what is essential and we simply desire to worship our Lord in a safe and Biblical way.”
Two other churches in Chilliwack rejected the public health officials’ orders, the Chilliwack Free Reformed Church and Free Grace Baptist Church. They claim the public health order of the provincial health officer violated their Charter rights.
Later, on December 6, 2020, the same Riverside Calvary Chapel defied the provincial health officer’s orders by holding another in-person meeting. Which, to secular members of the public, generally, does not surprise, in this country, Christianity, as believed and held by Christians, has been and continues to be a political tool.
Something upon which to flaunt their being exceptions to the rules; while, at the same time, everyone else must follow them. When they get called on it, they play the victim. This is the narrative. This is the story for centuries.
How many times has the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church had the opportunity to apologize and make amends for the Residential School System in this country? There are tons of cases like this.
Kari Simpson, the Executive Director of Culture Guard (Langley, British Columbia, Canada), spoke on the issue. Culture Guard is known for opposition to sexual orientation and gender identity resources in schools and wanting a “Canadian Judeo-Christian Flag” raised at Langley City hall.
Whereas, in fact, the same rules for everyone applied and then based on religious reasoning and grounds the individual members and leaders of Riverside Calvary Chapel defied the public health orders putting the public at health risk.
Which is to state, Kari Simpson is not only wrongheaded, but backwards in the reasoning. The individual church members functioning in a tax exempt building defied health orders for the benefit of the public, while taking break on public dime (including secular community members, who are plentiful), and then claimed the violators were the victims.
Imagine a thief coming to Riverside Calvary Chapel and stealing objects belonging to the church, this makes the news. Everyone’s up in arms. The police fine the thief after apprehending them and returning the stolen church goods.
The church members and leaders, e.g., Lead Pastor Brent Smith, claims this is against the law, to steal public property from the church. The thief then claims, “Why are you and the State making this political?” You see the issue.
Simpson, in essence, is explicitly claiming special rights and exceptions to rules obeyed by everyone else for Protestant Evangelical Christians at Riverside Calvary Chapel. Lead Pastor Brent Smith, and other pastoral leaders, are implicitly claiming special rights and exceptions by their actions once to the tune of $2,300 (CAD) and a second time.
That’s the point. Some don’t care to function by the same rules and regulations, and laws, as everyone else, because they view themselves as above it, which is the attitude and stance of common, petty criminals.
However, it comes under the guise of religion in the Township of Langley and, therefore, acquires a certain social immunity from common criticism as one would apply in the case of the thief.
Interestingly enough, Simpson claimed, “[Provincial health officer] Bonnie Henry is going to have to justify her position on this. I think she’s going to have real trouble.” The public justification is public health and safety, which most of the public understands, respects, and shows mutual concern and respect through following the rules here. I’ll give Simpson the benefit of the doubt; she’s lying and playing to her base rather than ignorant and lying.
Again, to Simpson, it’s quite the opposite. Simpson will “have to justify her position on this” because “I think she’s going to have real trouble” with justifying it. Why? Because she can’t justify it on the bases of the same standards as everyone else in law, in policy, in health guidelines and rules for the common good.
As implicit here, the issue is fundamentalist religious, often Christian, sentiments, in this municipality; justifications for the unjustifiable with appeals to privileged status for one’s own preferred religion and sect within the preferential religion, which, by definition, becomes unequal in status on a stand of greater stature.
Important to note, both Chilliwack pastors, James Butler (Free Grace Baptist) and John Koopman, are quoted as citing God and Christian theology as the reason for violating the public health order.
Butler stated, “The identification of what is and what is not an ‘essential service’ is certainly open for interpretation, but in short, we believe that churches are essential, and that Christians are commanded by God to attend public worship.”
Koopman said, “Our convictions compel us to worship our God in the public gathering of his people and we must act in accordance with our conscience.”
What if one were to make an appeal to a particular political ideology as a reason for statements around “The identification of what is and what is not an ‘essential service’ is certainly open for interpretation”?
You see the issues and the concerns here. In “Police warned Langley church will face more fines for in-person worship: court documents,” Ferguson stated, “According to a petition filed on Jan. 7 in the Vancouver B.C. Supreme Court registry on behalf of Riverside Calvary and several other parties in B.C., two bylaw officers and six RCMP officers arrived at the church in the 9600 block of 201st Street to issue the first ticket for $2,300 on Sunday, Nov. 29.”
As of mid-January, 19 churches in the Fraser Valley have been defying the public health order. This is the relatively common, non-majority attitude if happening sufficiently here.
Although, Pastor Smith of Riverside Calvary Chapel has done some positive contributions with not condoning some online attacks against a business owner, Dena Fyfe. Nonetheless, the main issues stay here.
The basic issue remains a culture as a threat to public health with explicit reasoning given in religious interpretations stipulated in public by pastors. It’s not a mystery; it’s, also, probably appalling to other religious people who are community leaders who adhere to guidelines, as with Cllr. Blair Whitmarsh (see below).
This, in addition to “B.C. churches breaking COVID-19 rules still get government tax breaks,” describes the basic rationalist views here. As Graeme Wood reported in the article, “Riverside got an $11,997 tax break from the Township of Langley in 2019; in 2018 it got a $10,925 break.” “Riverside” meaning Riverside Calvary Chapel in Langley, British Columbia, Canada.
Only a fine of $2,300 with tax breaks as much as 5 times as much as that fine number per annum, in the most recent years. Then they break the order to attend church; two Chilliwack pastors break the order to attend churches explicitly for religious reasons; and then, 19 churches are reported – only in the Fraser Valley – to have violated the public order.
Thusly, this is a pathology within sectors of religious communities, not secular ones. Dr. Teale Phelps-Bondaroff of the British Columbia Humanist Association has been making a public call for every municipality within the province to have a public benefits test. Why?
A public benefits test for permissive tax exemptions. The argument was that if a worship place breaks the law, then the subsidies (tax exemptions) should be removed, because these are paid on the public dime and should be held to the same standards as everyone else: admission prices – so to speak.
Dr. Teale Phelps-Bondaroff stated to Graeme Wood, “[Permissive tax exemptions] exist specifically to support work that benefits the community… So, I would argue that a place of worship that is holding meetings in open defiance of COVID-19 regulations that are in place to keep people safe and prevent the spread of the pandemic is not providing a service that benefits the community – quite the opposite… Continuing to provide that place of worship with a PTE is an example of the government subsidizing this irresponsible and dangerous behaviour.”
Phelps-Bondaroff continued to dig into the Township of Langley. He noted Council interpretation is important with the local bylaws and Community Charter setting the framework. He argues these favour the places of worship over non-religious non-profit groups.
The Council of the Township of Langley reviews and passes permissive tax exemptions every year. Accordingly, tax-exempt organizations, e.g., churches, have to “fulfil some basic need, improve the life of Township residents and are compatible with or are complementary to services offered by the Township.”
This is how Woods is reporting it. Wherein, the breaking of health orders for the public good do not improve quality of life standards for members of the public.
Apparently, the permissive tax exemptions policy for the Township of Langley stipulates, “Council will only consider applications for permissive tax exemptions from charitable and not-for-profit organizations which are in good standing with their respective establishing and governing bodies… Permissive tax exemptions previously granted by Council are subject to an annual review to ensure that they continue to qualify for an exemption based on the most current available information at the time of the review.”
This is important. Furthermore, nobody from the Township of Langley Council responded to queries from the news agency for the article by Wood. Wood reported on December 21, 2020.
Now, the “Langley Township could strip tax break from churches defying COVID health orders” was January 11, 2021, so later. The councillors made public statements about this. The Township of Langley Councillor, Kim Richter placed a motion forward to “yank the permissive tax exemption status in 2022” from organizations failing to abide by the orders of the province’s health officer.
Richter made, more or less, the same argument, stating, “I think we have to put our foot down… There are lots of organizations out there that get the grant… and they abide by the rules, and they should continue to be supported by public monies.”
Hence, if an organization receiving permissive tax exemptions fails to follow public health orders, the status is removed.
Councillor David Davis approached this from a different angle, saying, “I don’t believe this motion says we’re going to censor what you’re saying, how you’re saying it… It’s just saying we can’t support a tax deduction if you are disobeying the head medical ministry.”
Councillor Blair Whitmarsh stated, “I’ve been disappointed by the action of some of the groups in our com that have chosen to disregard the orders that have come from the ministry.”
The British Columbia Humanist Association estimated $12.2 million (CAD) is given out to places of worship in 2019 via permissive tax exemptions by the Government of British Columbia.
Councillor Petrina Arnason was concerned about legal ramifications with the potential for Charter legal challenges to the motion. Richter has a lot of Council experience and had the savvy to propose sending the motion to Township of Langley staff for review of “final wording and any legal implications.”
As a conclusive note to date, the motion is expected to come back at a later Council meeting for a review and vote, so continues the saga of church and political & public life in Langley.
Footnotes
[1] Pastor Hamre stated:
Let us pray a prayer of blessing upon the commitments made tonight.
Heavenly Father, we thank you for the sincerity of the individuals standing before us. We thank you for their integrity. We thank you for their years of experience and their willingness to serve the Township of Langley. We pray now that you would empower them with knowledge, and wisdom, and discernment. We pray that you would help them to have listening ears and hearts that are open to people and topics as they come week by week. We pray that you would give them physical stamina and endurance. We pray that you would protect them and protect their families. We pray that you would bless them as they serve one another and serve our community.
We pray these blessings in the name of Christ, amen.
[2] Dear Hon. Mayor and Council of the Township of Langley (ToL),
I am writing regarding the practice of beginning the inaugural session of the new ToL Council with a prayer in 2018.
I am a ToL resident. I did not attend the inaugural meeting of the new ToL Council at the time. Looking at the contents of the agenda of November 5, 2018, I noticed the inaugural ToL Council session was opened by the national anthem, an oath of office, and then an invocation in item C.1 stating, “Pastor Derrick Hamre, Christian Life Assembly, to offer the invocation on behalf of all present.” Pastor Hamre is the lead pastor of the Christian Life Assembly, which is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) and, thus, a Christian religious representative invocation, i.e., an invocation with clear and straightforward interpretation as a prayer with reference to Christianity, in general, and Christian religious terminology, in particular, including “Heavenly Father,” “pray,” “prayer,” “blessing,” “bless, “Christ,” and “amen.” In short, with the statement in full, it is a Christian prayer. I took the liberty of transcribing Pastor Hamre’s wording in full for review:
Let us pray a prayer of blessing upon the commitments made tonight.
Heavenly Father, we thank you for the sincerity of the individuals standing before us. We thank you for their integrity. We thank you for their years of experience and their willingness to serve the Township of Langley. We pray now that you would empower them with knowledge, and wisdom, and discernment. We pray that you would help them to have listening ears and hearts that are open to people and topics as they come week by week. We pray that you would give them physical stamina and endurance. We pray that you would protect them and protect their families. We pray that you would bless them as they serve one another and serve our community.
We pray these blessings in the name of Christ, amen.
As a freethinker, or a non-believer, and someone who believes in the separation of religion and government, I consider prayers as out of place, inappropriate, and against the fundamental principle of secularism in a government meeting. Indeed, a significant minority of the population of the ToL have no religious affiliation or a minority religious affiliation apart from Christianity in its various denominations or sects. The selection of one religion at the exclusion of others and in this case, of the majority religion, has the effect of serving as a subtle reminder to Langley citizens without a faith or of a minority faith that they are different than the majority. It sends the message: the political space of ToL Council favours one group over others. This has the effect of making some people feel unwelcome in this venue.
I wanted to bring to the attention of the Mayor and council a Supreme Court ruling addressing the question of beginning municipal council meetings with prayers. Specifically, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay, found “the prayer recited by the municipal council in breach of the state’s duty of neutrality resulted in a distinction, exclusion and preference based on religion.”
This ruling elaborated, noting that “the pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs. A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society. The state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others…” (Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015, SCC 16 [2015] 2 S.C.R. 3).
The ruling found that the “sponsorship of one religious tradition by the state in breach of its duty of neutrality amounts to discrimination against all other such traditions.” And that “the state may not act in such a way as to create a preferential public space that favours certain religious groups and is hostile to others.” Indeed, by extension, “… the state may not, by expressing its own religious preference, promote the participation of believers to the exclusion of non-believers or vice versa” [paragraph 75].
This ruling applies to municipal councils across Canada. As such, council sessions, inaugural or otherwise, should not include prayer. This ruling took place in 2015, before the inaugural 2018 ToL Council meeting. It is possible that the Mayor, Council, and staff were not aware of it, or its implications on the agenda and procedures of the inaugural meeting. As a result, I wanted to ask the following questions:
What process has the ToL Council historically followed in selecting people to deliver the prayer at the inaugural session of a new council?
What process was followed for the 2018 inaugural meeting?
If any, what compensation is provided to the individuals who deliver prayers at the most recent inaugural meeting?
In light of the Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay decision, how will the Mayor and council be changing process and procedures for future inaugural meetings?
[4] Timothy 2:12 (NIV) states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Timothy 2:12 (KJ21) states, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Timothy 2:12 (KJV) states, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine. It is based on the healing power of nature and it supports and stimulates the body’s ability to heal itself. Naturopathic medicine is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention using natural therapies including: botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation, traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture, lifestyle counselling and health promotion and disease prevention. – Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors
Naturopathy is a cornucopia of almost every quackery you can think of. Be it homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine, it’s hard to think of a single form of pseudoscientific medicine and quackery that naturopathy doesn’t embrace or at least tolerate. – Dr. David Gorski
Naturopaths claim that they practice based on scientific principles. Yet examinations of naturopathic literature, practices and statements suggest a more ambivalent attitude. NDhealthfacts.org neatly illustrates the problem with naturopathy itself: Open antagonism to science-based medicine, and the risk of harm from “integrating” these practices into the practice of medicine. Unfortunately, the trend towards “integrating” naturopathy into medicine is both real and frightening. Because good medicine isn’t based on invented facts and pre-scientific beliefs – it must be grounded in science. And naturopathy, despite the claims, is anything but scientific. – Scott Gavura (Science-Based Medicine)
Naturopathic training does not prepare them to be primary care physicians. Their profession is not science-based, does not have a science-based standard of care, and is largely a collection of pseudoscience and dangerous nonsense loosely held together by a vague “nature is always best” philosophy.
This is one of those situations where most people will not believe that the situation can be as bad as it really is. This is similar to when I describe to people, who are hearing it for the first time, what homeopathy actually is. They usually don’t believe it, because they cannot accept that something so nonsensical can be so widespread and apparently accepted in our society. The same is true when I tell people about the core chiropractic philosophy of life energy (at least for those chiropractors who have not rejected their roots), or about what Scientologists actually believe.
One common reaction is the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Defenders will insist that what we are describing is the exception, and that a “real” naturopath is not like that. Obviously there will be a range of practice (especially since there is no standard), but the pseudoscientific treatments that make up naturopathy are not the exception. They are at the core of their education and their philosophy. – Dr. Steven Novella
“Naturopathic medicine” is an eclectic assortment of pseudoscientific, fanciful, and unethical practices. Implausible naturopathic claims are still prevalent and are no more valid now than they were in 1968. – Kimball C. Atwood
Naturopathic medical school is not a medical school in anything but the appropriation of the word medical. Naturopathy is not a branch of medicine. It is a combination of nutritional advice, home remedies and discredited treatments… Naturopathic practices are unchanged by research and remain a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice. – The Massachusetts Medical Society
Naturopathy[1] is, and always has been, a declaration of pseudoscience and pseudomedicine mixed together with truism dressed-up in cheap makeup to appear legitimate, respectable, even advanced and modern, and real, as per the first statement at the top in contrast to reliable and respected voices following it. Ignorance in a tutu is still ignorance.
It’s not an alternative way of knowing, a different form of medicine, or a novel line of thought. It’s not cheaper than medicine because real medicine works on the cases needing it and, therefore, utilize the finances of patients properly, i.e., effectively.
Naturopaths are not doctors, medical doctors, or real MDs. By peddling nonsense as sensible, they harm the public good and, thus, become a negative force in society, as purveyors of illegitimate practice. Why deal a light critique to individuals harming public in the most important areas of life, for example, medical care or health?
In turn, as self-proposed practitioners for the betterment of the health of the public, they detract attention and legitimacy away from real medical doctors, real medicine, in addition to the finances of the public. If alternative medicine became effective, then it would become non-alternative medicine, also known as medicine. So, what’s the point of it, in the first place?
One ignorance feeds into another. Whether in the local Township of Langley or in the wider province of British Columbia, even in small towns including Fort Langley, this is the nature of the pseudoscience and pseudomedicine landscape. Bad people, even thinking themselves good, bilk the public earning good money, even bad money or minimum wage income.
These individuals and, more fundamentally, fraudulent practices, should be combatted directly, even at the legislative level as they have been enforced in countries like the United States largely through legislative efforts. Why such a directed effort at legislation rather than randomized double-blind trials? Let me know how those homeopathic studies turn out.
In British Columbia, widely, when you do a search, you can find more than 100 places, so associations, colleges, clinics, centres, integrative clinics, medical centres, practitioners, and so on. All devoted to a pseudoscientific practice within one province. All either harming the bank accounts through fraudulent practices, or, potentially, harming the public.
Personally, they should not be able to operate in British Columbia generally, or in the Township of Langley in particular. It’s easily viewable as a wide range of pseudomedicine postulated as real medicine while without proper medical credentials, only fake qualifications, as in ‘real’ to the fake medicine while fake to the real medicine.
There’s a large number of practitioners and clinics of naturopathy, including associations, colleges, and institutes, such as the College Of Naturopathic Physicians Of British Columbia and the BC Naturopathic Association/BCNA.
It’s a – literal – zoo with the number of them. In a general search of the Canadian province of British Columbia, one set includes Dr. Janine Mackenzie ND, Abby Naturopathic Clinic: Dr. Cristina Coloma ND, Horizons Holistic Health Clinic, Edgemont Naturopathic Clinic, Boucher Naturopathic Medical Clinic, Dr. Aggie Matusik, Integrative Naturopatic Medical Centre, Dr. Marisa Marciano, ND, Dr. Melanie DesChatelets ND, Vitalia Naturopathic Doctors Vancouver, Dr. Grodski – White Rock Naturopathic, Dr. Lindsey Jesswein, ND, Noble Naturopathic, Local Health Integrative Clinic, Dr. Carlson-Rink C., Dr. Andrea Gansner Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Lorne Swetlikoff, BSc.,, ND, Polo Health + Longevity Centre, A New Leaf Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. E. D’Souza-Carey, ND – Family Health Clinic.
Another, second set includes Family Health Clinic: Naturopathic Medicine and Midwifery Care, Integrated Health Clinic, Dr. Jiwani, Naturopathic Physician Surrey Clinic (Not Vancouver) Autoimmune Weight Loss, Dr Andrew Eberding Naturopathic Doctor, Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, Meditrine Naturopathic Clinic, Vancouver Naturopathic Clinic, Selkirk Naturopathic Clinic, Cross Roads Naturopathic clinic, OZONE THERAPY BC: Dr. Walter Fernyhough, Dr. Allana Polo N.D Polo Health + Longevity Centre, Pangaea Clinic of Naturopathic Medicine Inc, Dr Eric Chan, Dr Tawnya Ward, Dr. Rory Gibbons, Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Caroline Coombs Naturopathci Doctor, Dr. Brian Gluvic, Kitsilano Naturpathic Clinic, Agency Health, and Richmond Alternative Medical Clinic.
There there’s the third set with Arc Integrated Medicine – Delta & Surrey Naturopathic Doctors, Dr. Kali MacIsaac, Naturopathic Doctor, Aspire Naturopathic Health Centre – Naturopath North Vancouver – Dr. Emily Habert, ND, Dr. Hal Brown, Red Cedar Health Ray Clinic, Lonsdale Naturopathic Clinic, Metrotown Naturopathic and Acupuncture, Yaletown Naturopathic Clinic, Flourish Naturopathic, Northshore Naturopathic Clinic, and Dr. Jonathon F. Berghamer.
The fourth set includes Dr. Scarlet Cooper, ND., Dr. Terrie Van Alystyne, Naturopathic Physician Whistler, Butterfly Naturopathic, Dr. Jason Marr, ND: Naturopathic Doctor, Peninsula Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Karen Fraser, Yaletown Integrative Clinic, Serenity Aberdour ND – Horizon Naturopathic Inc, Dr. Tasneem Pirani-Sheriff, ND, Avisio Naturopathic Clinic & Vitamin Dispensary, Dr. Robyn Land, Naturopathic Physician, Springs Eternal Natural Health, Dr. Alaina Overton, Cornerstone Health Centre: Maryam Ferdosian, ND, Dr. Kim McQueen, BSc, ND, Dr. Safia Kassam, and Restorative Health.
The fifth set of them include Dr. Esha Singh, ND, Dr. Bobby Parmar Naturopathic Doctor, Lansdowne Naturopathic Centre, West Kelowna Integrative Health Centre, Dr. Shalini Hitkari, ND, Dr. Jolene Kennett, Naturopathic Doctor, Dr. Karina Wickland, ND, Dr. Phoebe Chow – Lumicel Health Clinic, Dr. Maltais Lise, Vitality Wellness Centre, Dr. Lisa Good, ND, Dr. Heidi Lescanec, ND, Dr. Rod Santos, ND, Inc., West Vancouver Wellness Centre, Dr. Kully Sraw, Naturopathic Physician, Juniper Family Health, Dr. Peter Liu, ND, Garibaldi Health Clinic, Dr. Kayla Springer, ND, and Dr. Donna Ogden, ND, MSc, Naturopathic Doctor.
The sixth – yes, there’s more – set includes Dr. Cortney Boer, ND, Burnaby Heights Integrative HealthCare Inc., Dr. Amelia Patillo, ND, Jamie Sculley, Dr. Ewing Robert J., Central Park Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Kira Frketich, Living Wellness Centre, Dr. Jennifer Brown, ND, Dr. Randi Brown – Naturopathic Doctor, West Shore Family Naturopathic Ltd., Rejuv-Innate Naturopathic Clinic-Dr. Jamie Gallant, Dr. Tonia Winchester, Nanaimo Naturopathic Doctor – Tonic Naturopathic, NaturopathicVictoria.net, Fourth and Alma Naturopathic Medical Centre, Cheam Wellness Group, Maureen Williams, Dr. Meghan Dougan, ND, Dr. Brittany Schamerhorn, ND, and Dr. Jenna Waddy.
The seventh – almost there – set includes Inner Garden Health, Dr. Brit Watters, ND, Dr. Laruen Tomkins, ND, The Natural Path Clinic Inc., Elizabeth Miller, Dr. Jennifer Moss – Naturopathic Physician, Dr. Penny Seth-Smith, Seeded Nutrition, Northern Centre for Integrative Medicine, Aqua Terra Health, Dr. Kelsea Parker, ND, Maple Ridge Naturopathic Clinic, Newleaf Total Wellness Centre, Vitality Integrative Health, Dr. Orissa Forest, BSc, ND, Acacia Health – Dockside, Dr. Megan Kimberley, Naturopath, Dr. Landon McLean Healthcare, Back to Our Roots Indigenous Medicine, and N.A. Hemorrhoids Centre.
The eighth set is Legacies Health Centre, Kelowna Naturopathic Clinic, Marseille’s Remedy – Traditional Oil Blend, Lani NYkilchuk, ND, Dr. Heather van der Geest, ND, Hummingbird Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Elli Reilander, ND, BodaHealth, The Natural Family Health Clinic, Dr. Chelsea Gronick, Naturopathic Doctor, Dr. Carla Cashin, ND, Dr. Karen McGree, Saffron Pixie Yoga & Naturopathy, Wild Heart Therapies and Farmacy, Dr. Andrea Whelan, Well+Able Integrated Health LTD., Dr. Kim Hine, ND, Dr. Graham Kathy, Dr. Emily Freistatter, Naturopathic Doctor, Inner Garden Health.
The ninth set is Dr. Emily Pratt, BSc, ND, Inc., Life Integrative, Dr. Michael Tassone, ND, Harbour Health: Massage Therapy, Physiotherapy, Chiropractor, Naturopath, Broadway Wellness, Spokes – Clinical Naturopathy, Dr. Fulton Lynne, Electra Health, Dr. Macdonald Deidre, Ray Lendvai Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Maryam Ferdosian, ND, Yinstill Reproductive Wellness, Prajna Wellness, Fountain Wellness & Physiotherapy, Qi Integrated Health, Paradigm Naturopathic Medicine, Apex Chiropractic Coquitlam, Kamloops Naturopathic Clinic, Dr. Carmen Anne Luterbach, and Dr. Mar Christopher.
The final and tenth set is Dr. Lawrence Brkich, The Phoenix Centre, Cave Cure & Therapies, Twisted Oak Holistic Health, Coast Therapy Maple Ridge, Balance Natural Health Clinic, Dr. Theresa Camozzi, ND, BC Pulse Therapy, Naramata Lifestyle Wellness-Best Naturopathy, Meditation, Weight Management Centre Okanagan, Acubalance Wellness Centre, Ltd., Dr. Milanovich David, Catalyst Kinetics Group, and Dr. Kimberly Ostero, BSc., ND, and Kontinuum Naturopathic Medicine, Inc.
The obvious benefit in these titles compared to the astrologers, mediums, and psychics, is the appearance of professionalism, while, in a mysterious manner, acquiring an entire reputation based on a fallacious premise, pseudomedicine, in addition to a false title.
It’s less turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down, and more falsehoods all the way down, and to the top. People with all the accoutrement of the professional and medical world while, in fact, lacking the substance, the content, and so mimicking, or parroting, the forms and stylings of them.
A shame, a scandal in the province, a waste of the public’s dime, a tax on the wellbeing of the province as a whole because real medicine exists, and ignorance without proper medical bases, while idiotic in its proposition and imbibing by the general public. Everyone’s to blame here; while, some are more culpable than others.
This shows both a failure in critical thinking on the part of the public, individuals entering into the schools for training, and a firm action on the part of the proper authorities to regulate public health in such a manner as to delegitimize failed philosophies from the 1800s proposed as modern medicine.
As stipulated, succinctly, by the skeptic Wiki, RationalWiki, the titles of ND in British Columbia naturopaths and naturopathic physicians, self-proclaimed, as in Naturopathic Doctor, does not mean a doctor, a physician, or a medical doctor.
These titles, ND, remain false proclamations of credentials and qualifications, by and large, rejected by both mainstream medicine and mainstream science. These are a manner in which to attempt to co-opt the earned legitimate legacy of modern medical science and modern science, as per credentials, e.g., MD, with illegitimate pseudoscience and pseudomedicine.
In fact, the issue in North America is widespread, as stated by RationalWiki, in “Alternative Medicine Education,” “…there are actually 7 accredited institutions in North America that award this degree (as of 2012), 5 in the United States (Bastyr University, National College of Natural Medicine, National University of Health Sciences, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine) and 2 in Canada (Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, and Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine). For those who want a shorter route, it is also widely available from diploma mills.”
These individuals will use the title of “Dr.” If you don’t believe me, then I would propose looking at the ten sets above. How often does the use of the term ‘Dr.” get used in the public face of the institutions?
Next, we can ask about the private face. How many? How often? It is probably more, and more forcefully, because “Dr.,” rightfully, earned the title because the education is more difficult and the positive effects on society far more great.
That which was known as health fraud in prior generations through consistent efforts continues to be regarded more as medicine rather than ‘medicine.’
It should be halted, deconstructed, and shown for its farcical foundations and direct, and indirect, harms on the public.
[1] Even Wikipedia, as a minor resource, it states:
Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as “natural”, “non-invasive”, or promoting “self-healing”. The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM). Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery. Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.
Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice. In addition to condemnations and criticism from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society, naturopaths have repeatedly been denounced as and accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.
Liberty University in the United States closed down its philosophy department, recently. The Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy over sex abuse lawsuits. “Nones” became part of common academic discourse. Movement atheism rose, failed, has begun to change, to adapt internal pressures, and incorporate wider needs and represents another part of a common trend in the hobby-ing of religion in our societies. Canada comes out no different. The fear discourse towards the formally, institutionally non-religious continues apace and the surrounding magical thinking, gullibility, superstition, pseudoscience, fake medicine, and more, co-exists with us, nonetheless. I note a mutual reinforcement, too. If magic can happen from the pulpit, why not from a local clinic or a home remedy sold on the shelf? It would harbour more a sensibility of humour if not for the tragically awful impacts derived in some domains on so many people’s lives. Liberty University’s replica, in part, can be found in the largest fundamentalist Evangelical Christian university in Canada called Trinity Western University with some controversy in its history and in the formulation of community culture in the Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada. Those students live in its surrounding Fort Langley environment in reasonable numbers. Some times falsely advertised by Trinity Western University marketing as the Trinity Western University village or town, as if an official designation, as in the YouTube clip entitled “This is Fort Langley – TWU’s university town.” That’s a lie. It’s a National Historic Site.
In its recent history, as a starter example, there has been some predictable commentary flowing in the pens and notifications. One from Derek Bisset exhibited a particularly interesting article entitled “There Are Atheists in the Church” as recent as August 4, 2015. Not necessarily a rare view, it’s more a common sentiment based on the trend line of history and the adaptations for the modern world with Liberal Theology and the tenuous status of some foundational tenets with the continual onslaughts of modern empiricism. This was formulated around a somewhat critical commentary about the welcoming-everyone attitude of the church to the general membership of The United Church of Canada. He stated:
It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that after years of saying “All are welcome in this place” that the result is a range of views within the church about the existence of God, especially as we seem to live in a society becoming ever more secular and inclining to require evidence for what we are willing to believe.
I suppose a space journey through emptiness four and a half hours away at the speed of light should have some bearing in putting early concepts of the Heavens to rest. Now I think we will have to stick with a range of ideas about a God who is here on Earth, interventionist or metaphorical, according to our personal views about what we need as individuals or what is needed to make the world a better place for all.
These amount to intriguing propositions about the reasons in which evolution for the church ideology become necessities within a secularizing/de-churching culture rather than true rebukes. The reason for the theological changes come from the empirical revolutions and educational improvements with the churches harbouring less tenable propositions about the nature of the world. Many propositions some deem outmoded, comical, or equivalent to others requiring fewer personal sacrifices of individual and communal wellbeing. The implication of a rejection of the modern views would be a return to more primitive mental constructs, models of the world. Is the concern the truth or the retaining of members? As it turns out, the “most worrying” development came not from a more reality-based church, but the loss of a member to a rival church. This tells the tale of the tribe.
Indeed, the reasons provided for leaving the local church from the member who left: the hot-wax nature of the beliefs rather than the rigid stone pillar faith. Probably, a rigid faith where men have a defined active role. Women have a defined passive role. God intervenes in the world. Prayer can aid in healing ailments. Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is the literal truth, God-breathed Word of the Lord. And Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. And evolution is the work of He down Below. If one wants to move back the civilizational lens in the West several centuries, I suppose one could ‘upgrade’ or, rather, retrograde the theology and the worldview. Of course, the personality focus for the critical examination of a local United Church of Canada congregation came around some of the beginning of the controversy for Rev. Gretta Vosper. Bisset continued:
When a minister of the United Church of Canada declares herself for atheism in the Church and still retains her position with her own church and a sizeable congregation things appear to be coming to a head. That Gretta Vosper has changed the practicing of religion in her church drastically and has been on a personal speaking crusade to persuade Christians that more change is needed has brought her into conflict with those responsible for allowing her to act as a United Church minister. She may require to be defrocked and no longer allowed to preach her heretical doctrine…
A woman on a “personal speaking crusade to persuade Christians” who has been “brought… into conflict” and “may require to be defrocked and no longer allowed to preach her heretical doctrine.” Although, the bias is obvious. The larger, more interesting point is the focus on having to snuff out dissent and retain membership. It’s not about the ideas, except as derivative, inasmuch as it is about the numbers of the followers, the flock, for which the local church is bound to shepherd. This is relatively marginal and isolated talk or idle public conversation within an individual church. Behind the closed doors of home & hearth, and church on Sundays, the discussions, rumours, and insinuation & innuendo will be much the same. Only some retain the gumption to speak in this manner in public. He leaves off a nice skeptical note, “After all, if you can’t have a good argument about religious beliefs within the Church, where is there a better place to have it,” and deserves kudos for it. In general, though, the undercurrent probably replicates in events with different churches and similar phenomena. Demographic decline and theological liberalization – seen as watering down – concern significant sections of 2/3rds of the population of Canada.
As noted in Issue 48 of the Fort Langley Evangelical Free Church from 2017, they describe an event with The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. An organization – The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, akin to the Templeton Foundation, devoted to strange attempts at bridging religion and science. Although, the Templeton Foundation comes with a huge cash prize. That’s motivation enough for some. The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation focuses on science and a “life-giving Christian tradition” with a statement of faith (common in Christian organizations throughout the country):
We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God’s creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.
These four statements of faith spell out the distinctive character of the CSCA, and we uphold them in every activity and publication of the Affiliation.
As implicitly admitted in the “Commission on Creation” of the American Scientific Affiliation taken by The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation for presentation to its national public, some members of the affiliation will adhere to a “Young-Earth (Recent Creation) View,” “Old-Earth (Progressive Creation) View,” “Theistic Evolution (Continuous Creation, Evolutionary Creation) View,” or “Intelligent Design View.” There’s the problem right there. Only one real game in town, evolution via natural selection. This becomes four wrong views plus one right position with the four incorrect views bad in different ways or to different degrees, i.e., four theological views and one scientific view. In other words, the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, by its own claims and standards, amounts to a theological affiliation, not a “Scientific” affiliation. It’s false advertising if not outright lying by title and content.
Anyway, the Issue 48 newsletter of the Fort Langley Evangelical Free Church presented the event entitled “Science, Religion, & the New Atheism,” by Dr. Stephen Snobelen, who is an Associate Professor of the History of Science and Technology Programme at University of King’s College, Halifax. This is common too. This is, based on extensive research in “Canadians’ and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism in the Matters of the Origins and Evolution,” the trend for years now. (Any commentary considerations for creationism and Intelligent Design can be considered there, as the rest would be repetition.)[1] In short, the only places, or the vast majority of places, to present these ideas are churches and religious institutions. Outside of those, these theological hypotheses posed as scientific aren’t taken seriously or, generally, are seen as a hysterical joke when posed as science rather than theology. Some, like Zak Graham in “Atheism is simply a lack of belief,” get the point published in The Langley Times. That seems like an uncommon stance in the wider community.
As Brad Warner notes in a short confessional post in Fellowship Pacific, he came to the Christian religion in university. It’s a sweet confession, which tells a sociological tale. The personalities are landmarks or guideposts, so largely irrelevant, not the main points in this article. Either someone is indoctrinated into faith or religion with specific thou shalts and thou shalt nots before critical thinking becomes a real possibility, or the individuals, typically, attend a Christian or private university and become suffused within a Christian ethos in a vastly dominated-by-Christianity culture in Canadian society with 2/3rds of the general population identifying as Christian. Even in some indications of the counselling professionals in the area, as an individual case study, statements emerge as in Alex Kwee, Ph.D., R.Psych. stating, “A distinctive of my approach lies in the fact that I am a Christian. The practice of psychotherapy is never value-neutral; even the most ostensibly ‘objective’ of counsellors must possess certain irreducible value propositions—even atheism or secular humanism are value systems that cannot be proven ‘right’ one way or another.” Note, he makes Christianity or Christian identity as part of the approach, as I am certain of the same for countless others in the area and around the country. Also, the conflation or dual-linkage between atheism and secular humanism alongside value systems. It’s a quaint proposition and half-false. In the instance of atheism, it does not posit values, but it proposes a lack of belief in gods – not values. (Hence, “half-wrong,” Q.E.D.) Coming from a Christian worldview with the good coming from God, the denial of such can only seem as if this. It’s not. What does propose values? Secular humanism, certainly, proposes values; Christianity asserts values too. Why bring atheist and secular humanism into the equation? Does this come from a pre-emptive defensive posture for the inevitable conflict of professional ethics and the introduction of theological constructs into psychotherapeutic processes with clients? Indeed, the potentially inevitable, seemingly incurable prejudice and bias in practitioners bringing their religious faiths with supernatural structures maybleed into the therapeutic process. Mr. Kwee states:
As a Christian, I contextualize my approach and strategies within a spiritual and faith-affirming framework, which is important for many of the Christian clients with whom I work. I firmly believe that therapy cannot be done in an existential or spiritual vacuum, but that the most effective therapy contextualizes evidence-based techniques to a client’s system of personal meaning to help them to create a life that is rich with meaning and purpose, not just devoid of psychological pain. Because most people are in search of greater meaning and appreciate a more “ultimate” frame of reference, I find that clients of many walks and backgrounds are comfortable working with me even if they do not share my worldview.
One can come as a non-religious person, but one should be wary – as has been commonly reported by prominent secular therapists as Dr. Darrel Ray of Recovering From Religion and the Secular Therapy Project. Furthermore, some of the peer-reviewed research presented on the professional website for Mr. Kwee amounts to assertions of sexual addiction or sex addiction. This is a pseudoscientific view or a theological assertion, not a psychological construct viewpoint. Take a counselling psychologist, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, in an interview with me entitled “Ask Dr. Robertson 13 — A Hawk’s Eye on Counsellors’ Professional Ethics and Morals,” stated:
When an ideology or religion is used to modify terms like “psychology,” “counselling” or “psychotherapy,” I become wary. For example, how does “Christian Counselling” differ from counselling? Christian counsellors I have talked to define their religion as having certain superior attributes with respect to love and spiritual fulfillment. But a secular counsellor, on finding that a client believed in prayer, for example, might invite the client to pray as part of his or her therapeutic plan. A difference might be that if the prayer does not work to the client’s satisfaction, the secular counsellor might be more willing to explore other alternatives while the Christian counsellor might be more prone engage in self-limiting platitudes such as, “Maybe God does not want this for you.” Counsellors employed by Catholic Family Services are routinely required to sign a statement stating they will respect the Church’s beliefs regarding “the sanctity of life.” This is regularly interpreted to mean that counsellors in their employ may not explore the option of abortion with pregnant clients, and if a client chooses that option, she will do so without the support of her counsellor or therapist. Counsellors from a variety of Christian denominations actively discourage people who are non-heterosexual. A particularly unethical practice is encapsulated in the oxymoron “Conversion Therapy.” Conversion implies a template outside of the individual to which the individual converts. It is, therefore, the opposite of therapy where the client defines his own template. Overall, Christian counselling does not add to the professional practice but is subtractive, limiting the options permitted clients.
The notion of limiting psychology’s ability to increase to individual choice and volition is pervasive…
… Scott, you asked me about professional codes of ethics. Codes of ethics are written by those with the power to do so. Conversion Therapy as practiced by some Christian groups has been ruled unethical. The feminist version has not. I believe that freedom of conscience involves a duty to conduct oneself to a higher ethic, and in my case that ethic involves supporting individual volitional empowerment. Individual volition operates within the constraint that there is a reality outside ourselves and if we stray too far from that reality we will harm ourselves and others. We cannot gain empowerment by feeding a delusion.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 or the DSM-5 rejected sex addiction for inclusion in 2013. There’s no such thing as sex addiction as a formal psychological construct; sex addiction is a theological construct, i.e., a pseudoscientific and worldview construct posed as psychological. This seems like bad science and, thus, leading to the potential for a bad theoretical foundation for praxis, for practice. Could purity culture from Christian doctrine and worldview be influencing this particular academic output? Could these views influence the “meaning and purpose” of those coming to the Kwees of psychotherapy or counselling psychology? It’s an open question; I leave this to clientele, while I intend this as a case study of a larger issue within the therapeutic practice culture. As Dr. Darrel Ray in “Extensive Interview with Dr. Darrel Ray on Secular Therapy and Recovering From Religion” stated:
So, #2 behind the fear of hell are issues around their sexuality and things like, “I know it’s not wrong to masturbate, but I still feel guilty,” “I am a sex addict because I look at porn.” There’s tons of evidence that the most religious people self-identify the most as “sex addicts.” Not to mind, there is no such thing as sex addiction. There’s no way to define it. I have argued with atheists that have been atheists for 20 years who say that they are sex addicts. Help me understand, how did you get that diagnosis? “My mother-in-law diagnosed me” [Laughing]. “I look at porn once or twice a week.” I do not care if you look at porn once or twice an hour. You are still not a sex addict. So, get over that. You may have other issues. You may have some compulsions. You may have some fear of driving the issue. But it almost always comes down to early childhood religious training, as we spoke about earlier. So, people are simply responding to the programming. Even though, they are atheist, secular, agnostic. I do not care what you call yourself. You are still dealing with the programming. Sometimes, you can go an entire lifetime with a guilt, a shame, a fear, rooted in religion.
Again, the point isn’t the individuals inasmuch as trends in culture with representative case studies as important for this. In those cases of the Bissets with a marginally skeptical view, it’s not about factual accounts of the world. It is about maintenance of numbers. In the cases of the Kwees, it’s not about factual and empiricalall the time, but it’s about selective factual-and-empirical, and buttressed and warped by theological pseudoscience (by the most up-to-date standards of the professional diagnostic and statistical manual for psychologists or the DSM-5 with lack of inclusion on one theological theory of sexual dysfunction in “sex addiction”). It should be noted. In the United States of America under the American Psychological Association, any imposition by an American-trained counselling psychologist can be called out on ethics violations. Slippery language should not be a basis upon which for a tacit claim for circumnavigation of A.4.b. Personal Values of the ethics code for American counsellors, which stipulates, “Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. Counsellors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counsellor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.” However, this is in Canada. If one sees presentations crossing the line in an explicit manner in a local or national context, one can express appropriate concerns with formal channels to act on it, whether non-Christians in general or the non-religious in particular. I doubt in this case on some levels, though, as the statements are reasonably carefully worded – and is grounded in psychotherapy as opposed to counselling psychology.
Fort Langley culture follows from the culture of Trinity Western University on a number of qualitative-observational metrics. A university that failed to attain a law school status based on the bias and prejudice stemming from a Community Covenantwith statements deemed repeatedly and nearly unequivocally as biased and prejudiced against members of the LGBTI community. They overwhelmingly lost the law school case 7-2 in the Supreme Court of Canada with denial of status as a law school as “reasonable” by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was June 15, 2018; the decision where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the British Columbia and Ontario law societies in a 7-2 collective decision for Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada and Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University.Shortly thereafter, they retracted the mandatory nature of the Community Covenant for the students, but, as I have been told, not for staff, faculty, and administrators. A faith needing community legislation appears weaker than one strong enough as written on the heart and lived out in one’s life. Bearing in mind, Christ never wrote anything down on paper. Perhaps, there has been some wisdom in this fact worth retaining in this case. Dissenting views exist on the campus and in the community. One TWU is one LGBTI community group around campus without formal affiliation (“*We are run completely independently from and bare no formal affiliation with Trinity Western University”), though small, for individual students who may be struggling on or around campus. While others outside the formal TWU community, and in the extended fundamentalist Christian community, and taking the idea of “think differently” differently – as in “think the same, as always,” Richard Peachey is as fast as proclaiming the literal Word of God Almighty with homosexuality as an affront to God and fundamentally a sin in His sight. In spite of this, at one time or another, based on Canadian reportage and some names in the current listings, Matthew Wigmore, Bryan Sandberg, and David Evans-Carlson (co-founders of One TWU), and Nate/Nathan Froelich, Kelsey Tiffin, Robynne Healey, and others in the current crop – Kieran Wear, Elisabeth Browning, Queenie Rabanes, and Micah Bron – stand firm against some former mandatory community covenant standards either as supports for themselves or as allies who have been negatively impacted by the Community Covenant. A minority gender and sexual identity is completely healthy and normal. If the theology rejects this, then the theology is at odds with reality, not the students’ sense of themselves, who they love, and their identities, or the science. I agree with them and stand far more with them. When the Community Covenant was dropped as a mandatory requirement for students, many were excited and thrilled. Although, some questions arise about the reaction of excitement and thrill about some who left the university and see the change in the mandatory nature of the Community Covenant.
Why excitement? Why thrill? Aren’t some of these students gone? Wouldn’t this leave the concerns behind them? Aren’t others graduated at this point? Haven’t others already signed and suffered in the past? In short, isn’t it history? Insofar as I can discern, it’s a grounding of common suffering across academic cohorts at Trinity Western University for compassion and empathy for a sense of “no more” and “not to you, too” in the community of the fundamentalist faithful. These students, many of them, went through hell by the attitudes and behaviours reflected in a Community Covenant and selective literalist reading of purported sacred scripture of a larger sex and gender identity majority who, sometimes, treated them with suspicion, pity, or contempt grounded in theology and legislated in the Community Covenant. I feel a similar sentiment around the denial of same-sex marriage by some fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. The proportional response: I don’t believe in heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman for those particular fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. It sounds absurd because the former is outlandish, too.
Anyhow, continuing, why make others experience hell here-and-now in the belief of one’s personal near guarantee to hypothetical heaven there-and-then when one’s corpse is ash, ice, or six feet under, regardless? Does it matter? That is to ask, if God has a Divine Will and is the source of the Moral Law, the Good, and all in, of, and under Creation, why not let Him deal with it, not you? It’s obvious as to the implications here. All this is not due to the Devil, to demonic forces, to non-literalist Christians, to secular humanists, to atheists. This is entirely mundane. It is due to community attitudes and beliefs leading to actions making vulnerable members of the community feel wrong by nature, not of what they believe or their moral character but because, of who they are; that which they cannot change and are born with as human beings with minority sexual and gender identities. That’s bigotry. A nativist sensibility for the negative presumption of an individual based on, more or less, inborn characteristics with thin disguises in the form of “don’t hate the sinner, hate the sin.” Does anyone seriously buy this outside of the informationally, emotionally, and theologically confined and constricted fundamentalist walls where “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”? These are human, all-too-human, follies and foibles wrought forth on the lives of the few by the many in the hallowed halls of the largest Christian university in the country. The relief felt was less for themselves and more for others who would not have to endure as much next time around. I consider freedom of religion, belief, and conscience important for a secular democratic and pluralistic state. Thus, the students may feel healthier in a non-Christian or public university. However, if they choose a Christian university, or if they are pressured into this by parents, community, friends, church, and theology, then they have personal respect to choose, and in making the choice, to me, because, based on the readings, the reactions, and the sensibilities expressed, they’re entering hostile territory.
Congratulations for making it this far, but freethought extends into other areas too, of the local culture, as with hundreds of towns in this country, whether colonics/colonhydrotherapy, aromatherapy, chiropractory, acupuncture, reflexology, naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, or simply a culture of praying for help with an ailment (which is one overlap with the religious fundamentalist community and the reduced capacity for critical thought). Colonics/colonhydrotherapy is marginally practiced within some of the town in Fort Langley Colonics. Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D. in “Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More” stated rather starkly:
Colonic irrigation, which also can be expensive, has considerable potential for harm. The process can be very uncomfortable, since the presence of the tube can induce severe cramps and pain. If the equipment is not adequately sterilized between treatments, disease germs from one person’s large intestine can be transmitted to others. Several outbreaks of serious infections have been reported, including one in which contaminated equipment caused amebiasis in 36 people, 6 of whom died following bowel perforation. Cases of heart failure (from excessive fluid absorption into the bloodstream) and electrolyte imbalance have also been reported. Direct rectal perforation has also been reported. Yet no license or training is required to operate a colonic-irrigation device. In 1985, a California judge ruled that colonic irrigation is an invasive medical procedure that may not be performed by chiropractors and the California Health Department’s Infectious Disease Branch stated: “The practice of colonic irrigation by chiropractors, physical therapists, or physicians should cease. Colonic irrigation can do no good, only harm.” The National Council Against Health Fraud agrees.
In 2009, Dr. Edzard Ernst tabulated the therapeutic claims he found on the Web sites of six “professional organizations of colonic irrigations.” The themes he found included detoxification, normailzation [sic] of intestinal function, treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and weight loss. He also found claims elated to asthma, menstrual irregularities, circulatory disorders, skin problems, and improvements in energy levels. Searching Medline and Embase, he was unable to find a single controlled clinical trial that substantiated [sic] any of these claims.
On aromatherapy, this one is a softball. One can find this in the True Aromatherapy Products and Spa (TAP) store. As William H. London, in an article entitled “Essential Considerations About Aromatherapy” in Skeptical Inquirer, describes the foundations of aromatherapy as follows, “The practice of administering plant-derived essential oils on the skin, via inhalation of vapors, or internally via ingestion for supposed healing power is commonly called aromatherapy. The oils for aromatherapy are described as ‘essential’ to refer to the volatile, aromatic components that some people describe as the ‘essence’ of the plant source, which represents the plant’s ‘life force,’ ‘spirit,’ or soul. Aromatherapy is thus rooted in vitalism…” RationalWiki states:
Like most woo, aromatherapy starts with observable, real effects of smells on humans, and extrapolates and exaggerates into a whole range of treatments from the effective, to the banal, to the outright ridiculous…
… As well as the inherent problematic practice of wasting money on useless medicine and potentially substituting useless concoctions in place of conventional medicine, the essential oils in aromatherapy may be a skin irritant. It is also poorly regulated, as the claims that scents having any beneficial effects are regulated as a cosmetic claim, and it thus does not require FDA approval. Combined with the lack of evidence it really is a waste, but for you, not for those that sell the products. According to Quackwatch, Health Foods Business estimated that the total of aromatherapy products sold through health-food stores was about $59 million in 1995 and $105 million in 1996.
To chiropractory, it is widely regarded as a pseudoscience with either no efficacy or negative effects on the patient or the client. Fort Family Chiropractic and Evergreen Chiropractic are the two main businesses devoted to some practice of chiropractory. As Science-Based Medicine in its “Chiropractic” entry states:
Chiropractic was invented by D. D. Palmer, Sep 18, 1895 when he adjusted the spine of a deaf man and allegedly restored his hearing (a claim that is highly implausible based on what we know of anatomy). Based on this one case, Palmer decided that all disease was due to subluxation: 95% to subluxations of the spine and 5% to subluxations of other bones.
The rationale for chiropractic hinges on three postulates:
Bones are out of place
Bony displacements cause nerve interference
Manipulating the spine replaces the bones, removing the nerve interference and allowing Innate (a vitalistic life force) to restore health.
There is no credible evidence to support any of these claims…
…In over a century, chiropractic research has produced no evidence to support the postulates of chiropractic theory and little evidence that chiropractic treatments provide objective benefits. Research on spinal manipulation is inherently difficult, because double blind studies are impossible and even single blind studies are problematic; a placebo response is hard to rule out…
…There is no acceptable evidence that chiropractic can improve the many other health problems it claims to benefit, from colic to asthma. There is no evidence to support the practice of adjusting the spines of newborns in the delivery room or providing repeated lifelong adjustments to maintain health or prevent disease.
Up to half of patients report short-term adverse effects from manipulation, such as increased local or radiating pain; and there is a rare but devastating complication of neck manipulation: it can injure the vertebrobasilar arteries and cause stroke, paralysis, and death. Some chiropractors do not accept the germ theory of disease and only about half of them support immunization.
…according to the usual standards of medicine, acupuncture does not work.
Let me explain what I mean by that. Clinical research can never prove that an intervention has an effect size of zero. Rather, clinical research assumes the null hypothesis, that the treatment does not work, and the burden of proof lies with demonstrating adequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis. So, when being technical, researchers will conclude that a negative study “fails to reject the null hypothesis.”
Further, negative studies do not demonstrate an effect size of zero, but rather that any possible effect is likely to be smaller than the power of existing research to detect. The greater the number and power of such studies, however, the closer this remaining possible effect size gets to zero. At some point the remaining possible effect becomes clinically insignificant.
In other words, clinical research may not be able to detect the difference between zero effect and a tiny effect, but at some point it becomes irrelevant.
What David and I have convincingly argued, in my opinion, is that after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.
In layman’s terms, acupuncture does not work – for anything.
This has profound clinical, ethical, scientific, and practical implications. In my opinion humanity should not waste another penny, another moment, another patient – any further resources on this dead end. We should consider this a lesson learned, cut our losses, and move on.
Many of these practices are swimming in the, or have a foot in the, waters of pseudoscience practiced as if medically or physiologically feasible, but, in matter of fact, remain a drain on the public’s purse based on taking advantage of public confidence in medicine in Canada while having given zero benefit while failing to reject the null hypothesis.
Another issue practice is reflexology, as seen in Health Roots & Reflexology. Quackwatch concludes, “Reflexology is based on an absurd theory and has not been demonstrated to influence the course of any illness. Done gently, reflexology is a form of foot massage that may help people relax temporarily. Whether that is worth $35 to $100 per session or is more effective than ordinary (noncommercial) foot massage is a matter of individual choice. Claims that reflexology is effective for diagnosing or treating disease should be ignored. Such claims could lead to delay of necessary medical care or to unnecessary medical testing of people who are worried about reflexology findings.” Health Roots & Reflexology appears to be one business devoted to thus. As Dr. Harriet Hall in “Modern Reflexology: Still As Bogus As Pre-Modern Reflexology” said, “Reflexology is an alternative medicine system that claims to treat internal organs by pressing on designated spots on the feet and hands; there is no anatomical connection between those organs and those spots. Systematic reviews in 2009 and 2011 found no convincing evidence that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition. Quackwatch and the NCAHF agree that reflexology is a form of massage that may help patients relax and feel better temporarily, but that has no other health benefits. Our own Mark Crislip said, ‘The great majority of studies demonstrate reflexology had no effects that could not be replicated by picking fleas off your mate…And it has no anatomic or physiologic justification.’”
A larger concoction of bad science and medicine comes from the Integrated Health Clinicdevoted, largely, to naturopathy/naturopathic medicine (based on a large number of naturopaths on staff) and traditional Chinese medicine with manifestations in IV/chelation therapy, neural therapy, detox, hormone balancing & thermography, anthroposophical medicine, LRHT/hyperthermia, Bowen technique, among others. We’ll run through those first two, as the references to them are available in the resources, in the manner before. Scott Gavura in “Naturopathy vs. Science: Facts edition” stated:
Naturopaths claim that they practice based on scientific principles. Yet examinations of naturopathic literature, practices and statements suggest a more ambivalent attitude. NDhealthfacts.org neatly illustrates the problem with naturopathy itself: Open antagonism to science-based medicine, and the risk of harm from “integrating” these practices into the practice of medicine. Unfortunately, the trend towards “integrating” naturopathy into medicine is both real and frightening. Because good medicine isn’t based on invented facts and pre-scientific beliefs – it must be grounded in science. And naturopathy, despite the claims, is anything but scientific.
Naturopathy is often, if not always, practiced in combination with other forms of “alternative” health practices.Bastyr University, a leading school of naturopathy since 1978, offers instruction in such things as acupuncture and “spirituality.” Much of the advice of naturopaths is sound: exercise, quit smoking, eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, practice good nutrition. Claims that these and practices such as colonic irrigation or coffee enemas “detoxify” the body or enhance the immune system or promote “homeostasis,” “harmony,” “balance,” “vitality,” and the like are exaggerated and not backed up by sound research.
As Dr. David Gorski, as quoted in RationalWiki, stated, “Naturopathy is a cornucopia of almost every quackery you can think of. Be it homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine, it’s hard to think of a single form of pseudoscientific medicine and quackery that naturopathy doesn’t embrace or at least tolerate.” The Massachusetts Medical Society stated similar terms, “Naturopathic medical school is not a medical school in anything but the appropriation of the word medical. Naturopathy is not a branch of medicine. It is a combination of nutritional advice, home remedies and discredited treatments… Naturopathic practices are unchanged by research and remain a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice.” This is the level of qualifications of most of the practitioners of the IHC or the Integrated Health Clinic.
Now, onto Traditional Chinese Medicine or TCM, or Chinese Medicine or CM, also coming out of the Integrated Health Clinic, RationalWiki notes some of the dangerous, if not disgusting to a North American and Western European palette, ingredients:
CM ingredients can range from common plants, such as dandelion, persimmon, and mint, to weird or even dangerous stuff. Some of the more revolting (from a Western standpoint) things found in TCM include genitals of various animals (including dogs, tigers, seals, oxen, goats, and deer), bear bile (commonly obtained by means of slow, inhumane extraction methods), and (genuine) snake oil… Urine, feces, placenta and other human-derived medicines were traditionally used but some may no longer be in use.
Some of the dangerous ingredients include lead, calomel (mercurous chloride), cinnabar (red mercuric sulfide), asbestos (including asbestiform actinolite, sometimes erroneously called aconite) realgar (arsenic), and birthwort (Aristolochia spp.). Bloodletting is also practiced. Bizarrely, lead oxide, cinnabar, and calomel are said to be good for detoxification. Lead oxide is also supposed to help with ringworms, skin rashes, rosacea, eczema, sores, ulcers, and intestinal parasites, cinnabar allegedly helps you live longer, and asbestos…
Dr. Arthur Grollman, a professor of pharmacological science and medicine at Stony Brook University in New York, in an article entitled “Chinese medicine gains WHO acceptance but it has many critics” is quoted, on the case of TCM or CM acceptance at the World Health Organization, saying, “It will confer legitimacy on unproven therapies and add considerably to the costs of health care… Widespread consumption of Chinese herbals of unknown efficacy and potential toxicity will jeopardize the health of unsuspecting consumers worldwide.” On case after case, we can find individual practices or collections of practices of dubious effect if not ill-effect in the town. Indeed, this follows from one of the earliest points about the infusion of supernatural thinking or pseudoscientific integration of praxis into the community, whether fear of liberal theology, encouragement of pseudobiology, prejudice and bigotry against the LGBTI members of community, pseudo-psychological diagnoses passed off as real psychological and behavioural issues while simply grounded in theological bias and false assertions as psychological constructs, or in the whole host of bad medical and science practices seen in “colonics/colonhydrotherapy, aromatherapy, chiropractory, acupuncture, reflexology, naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine.”
This isn’t a declaration of “what to do,” but “if done, be, at least, informed about bad science, bad medicine, questionable theology, etc.” As noted about the right to freedom of belief, religion, and conscience (and expression and opinion), people are free to lose money on dubious treatments or otherwise. Freedom seen throughout Canada on the basis of “what people, in fact, do anyway”; whereas, at a minimum, the critical thinking of the culture should rise to the bare minimum standard of “if done, be, at least, informed about bad science, bad medicine, questionable theology, etc.”
[1]Canadians’ and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism in the Matters of the Origins and Evolution states:
Canadian Mennonite University invited Professor Dennis Venema from Trinity Western University as the Scientist in Residence. Venema, at the time, stated, “I’m thrilled to be invited to be the Scientist in Residence at CMU for 2019. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for students, and I am honoured to join a prestigious group of prior participants… I hope that these conversations can help students along the path to embracing both God’s word and God’s world as a source of reliable revelation to us.” Venema defends the view of evolutionary theory within a framework of “evolutionary creationism,” which appears more a terminologically diplomatic stance than evolution via natural selection or the code language within some religious commentary as things like or almost identical to “atheistic evolution” or “atheistic evolutionism.” He provides education on the range of religious views on offer with a more enticing one directed at evolution via natural selection. The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation provides a space for countering some of the young earth geologist and young earth creationist viewpoints, as with the advertisement of the Dr. Jonathan Baker’s lecture, or in pamphlets produced on geological (and other) sciences.
He works in a tough area within a community not necessarily accepting of the evolution via natural selection view of human beings with a preference for special creation, creationism, or intelligent design. Much of the problems post-genetics as a proper discipline of scientific study and the discovery of evolution via natural selection comes from the evangelical Christian communities’ sub-cultures who insist on a literal and, hence, fundamentalist interpretation or reading of their scriptures or purported holy texts. Another small item of note. Other universities have writers in residence. A Mennonite university hosts a scientist in residence. Science becomes the abnorm rather than the norm. The King’s University contains one reference in the search results within a past conference. However, this may be a reference to “creation” rather than “creationism” as creation and more “creation” speaking to the theological interpretations of genesis without an attempt at an explicit scientific justification of mythology.
By far, the largest number of references to “creationism” came from the largest Christian, and evangelical Christian, university in the country located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada called Trinity Western University, which, given its proximity and student body population compared to the local town, makes Fort Langley – in one framing – and Trinity Western University the heart of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in Canada. Trinity Western University teaches a “SCS 503 – Creationism & Christainity [sic] (Korean)” course and a “SCS 691 – Creationism Field Trip” course. They hosted a lecture on Stephen Hawking, science, and creation, as stated:
In light of Steven Hawking’s theories, is there enough reason for theists to believe in the existence of God and the creation of the world?
This lecture will respond to Hawking’s views and reflect on the relationship between science, philosophy and theology.
Speaker: Dr. Yonghua Ge, Director of Mandarin Theology Program at ACTS Seminaries (Ibid.)
They hosted another event on evolution and young earth creationism:
All are welcome to attend, Public Lecture, hosted by TWU’s ‘Science, Faith, and Human Flourishing: Conversations in Community“ Initiative, supported by Fuller Seminary, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences, and the Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, “Evolutionary and Young-Earth Creationism: Two Separate Lectures” (Darrel Falk, “Evolution, Creation and the God Who is Love” and Todd Wood, “The Quest: Understanding God’s Creation in Science and Scripture”)
Dirk Büchner, Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University, states an expertise in “Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac (grammar and syntax), Hellenistic Greek (grammar and lexicography), The Septuagint. Of more popular interest: The Bible and Social Justice, and Creationism, Scientism and the Bible: why there should be no conflict between mainstream science and Christian faith.” Professor Büchner holds an expert status in “creationism.” A non-conflict between mainstream science and the Christian faith would mean the significantly reduced status of the intervention of the divine in the ordinary life of Christians. He remains one locus of creationism in the Trinity Western University environment. Dr. Paul Yang’s biography states, “Paul Yang has over twenty years teaching experience, lecturing on physics and physics education, as well as Christian worldview and creationism. He has served as the director of the Vancouver Institute for Evangelical Wordlview [Sic] as well as the Director of the Christian.” Yang holds memberships or affiliations with the American Scientific Affiliation, Creation Research Society, and Korea Association of Creation Research. Dr. Alister McGrath and Dr. Michael Shermer had a dialogue moderated by a panel with Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D., Jaime Palmer-Hague, Ph.D., and Myron Penner, Ph.D. in 2017 at Trinity Western University.
All exist as probably Christian front organizations with the pretense as scientific and Christian organizations. One can see the patterns repeat themselves over and over again. Christian ‘science’ amounts to creationism, as noted before. Yang, with more than 20 years, exists as a pillar of creationist teaching, thinking, and researching within Canada and at Trinity Western University…
…Other cases of the more sophisticated and newer brands of Christianity with a similar theology, but more evolutionary biology – proper – incorporated into them exist in some of the heart of parts of evangelical Christianity in Canada. Professor Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and his colleague Dave Navarro (Pastor, South Langley Church) continued a conversation on something entitled “evolutionary creation,” not “creation science” or “intelligent design” as Venema’s orientation at Trinity Western University continues to focus on the ways in which the evolutionary science can mix with a more nuanced and informed Christian theological worldview within the Evangelical tradition. One can doubt the fundamental claim, not in the Bible but, about the Bible as the holy God-breathed or divinely inspired book of the creator of the cosmos, but one can understand the doubt about the base claim about the veracity of the Bible leading to doubt about the contents and claims in the Bible – fundamental and derivative…
…A more small-time politician, Dr. Darrell Furgason, ran for public office in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada. Furgason lectured at Trinity Western University and earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies. Dr. Furgason claims inclusivity for all while ignoring standard protocol in science, i.e., asserting religious views in written work, “Theistic evolution is a wrong view of Genesis, as well as history, and biology. Adam & Eve were real people….who lived in real history….around 6000 years ago.” ..
…The main fundamentalist Evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, university, found in Canadian society is Trinity Western University, where Professor Dennis Venema was the prominent individual referenced as the source of progress in the scientific discussions within intellectual and, in particular, formal academic discussions and teaching. Trinity Western University operates near Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada in Langley. The main feature case for Story comes from a city near to Trinity Western University in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Story considers this the single most controversial case of creationism in the entire country…
…John Sutherland, of Trinity Western University, chaired the Abbotsford school board of the time, which, potentially, shows some relationship between the surrounding areas and the school curriculum and creationism axis – as you may recall Trinity Western University sits in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada, next to the city of Abbotsford, British Columbia as an evangelical Christian university. “The Minister agreed with Goodman and the Teachers’ Association and sent a letter requesting assurances from the board that they were adhering to the provincial curriculum…”, Story explained, “…The Minister’s requests were not directly acknowledged, but Sutherland was vocal about the issue in local media outlets. He accused the Minister of religious prejudice by attempting to remove creationism from the district.”
This article examines the spectrum of beliefs surrounding divine intervention in the origins and development of life, particularly within a Canadian context. It categorizes various creationist perspectives, including young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, deistic creationism, intelligent design, rapid speciation, and views that accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution. The article also outlines the scientific consensus around evolution via natural selection, positioning it among these belief systems for comparison.
The internal diversity and conflict among creationist groups are explored, with notable tensions between flat earth proponents and more traditional creationists, as well as between young earth and old earth advocates. These disagreements often center on the interpretation of scientific evidence and religious texts. Public debates and writings by prominent figures reflect these divisions and illustrate the persistence of these controversies.
Educational efforts to integrate or contrast science and faith are also discussed, including academic courses that explore models of interaction between scientific and religious epistemologies. These initiatives aim to clarify how different Christian traditions understand evolutionary theory and the age of the Earth.
The article highlights the continued relevance of these discussions in both religious and secular settings, suggesting that beliefs about creation and evolution remain deeply influential in shaping public understanding and personal worldviews.
“Around the world, around the world…” Good Fellas: Say, “Hello,” to my Little (Scientific) Friend!
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley
I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people.
Katharine Hepburn
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan
I’m not sure why I enjoy debunking. Part of it surely is amusement over the follies of true believers, and [it is] partly because attacking bogus science is a painless way to learn good science. You have to know something about relativity theory, for example, to know where opponents of Einstein go wrong. . . . Another reason for debunking is that bad science contributes to the steady dumbing down of our nation. Crude beliefs get transmitted to political leaders and the result is considerable damage to society.
Martin Gardner
The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin’s chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant — inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin’s idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense…
Daniel Dennett
My father’s family was super Orthodox. They came from a little shtetl somewhere in Russia. My father told me that they had regressed even beyond a medieval level. You couldn’t study Hebrew, you couldn’t study Russian. Mathematics was out of the question. We went to see them for the holidays. My grandfather had a long beard, I don’t think he knew he was in the United States. He spoke Yiddish and lived in a couple of blocks of his friends. We were there on Pesach, and I noticed that he was smoking.
So I asked my father, how could he smoke? There’s a line in the Talmud that says, ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah. I said, “How come he’s smoking?” He said, “Well, he decided that smoking is eating.” And a sudden flash came to me: Religion is based on the idea that God is an imbecile. He can’t figure these things out. If that’s what it is, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Noam Chomsky
Young earth creationism continues apace in Canadian society, and the global community (Canseco, 2018a). Canada outstrips America, and the United Kingdom outstrips Canada, in scientific literacy on this topic of the foundations of the biological and medical sciences (The Huffington Post Canada, 2012). Here we will explore a wide variety of facets of Canadian creationism with linkages to the regional, international, media, journalistic, political, scientific, theological, personality, associational and organizational, and others concerns pertinent to the proper education of the young and the cultural health of the constitutional monarchy and democratic state known as Canada. [Ed. Some parts will remain tediously academic in citation and presentation – cautioned.] Let’s begin.
To start on a point of clarification, some, as Robert Rowland Smith, seem so unabashed as to proclaim belief in creationism a mental illness (2010). Canseco (2018b) notes how British Columbia may be leading the charge in the fight against scientific denial. The claim of belief in creationism as a mental illness seems unfair, uncharitable, and incorrect (Smith, 2010). A belief – creationism – considered true and justified, which remains false and unjustified and, therefore, an irrational belief system disconnected from the natural world rather than a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association (2019) characterizes mental illness as “Significant changes in thinking, emotion and/or behavior. Distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities.”
A mental illness can influence someone who believes in creationism or not, but a vast majority of adherence to creationism seems grounded in sincere beliefs and normal & healthy social and professional functioning, not mental health issues. Indeed, it may relate more to personality factors (Pappas, 2014). Other times, deliberate misrepresentations of professional opinion exist too (Bazzle, 2015). It shows in the numbers. Douglas Todd remarks on hundreds of millions of Christians and Muslims who reject evolution and believe in creationism around the world (2014), e.g., “Safar Al-Hawali, Abdul Majid al-Zindani, Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi`i and others” in the Muslim intellectual communities alone.
On the matter of if this particular belief increases mental health problems or mental illness, it would seem an open and empirical question because of the complicated nature of mental illness, and mental health for that matter, in the first place. Existential anxiety or outright death anxiety may amount to a non-trivial factor of belief in intelligent design and/or creationism over evolution via natural selection (UBC, 2011; Tracy, Hart, & Martens, 2011). On the factual and theoretical matters, several mechanisms and evidences substantiate evolution via natural selection and common descent, including comparative genomics, homeobox genes, the fossil record, common structures, distributions of species, similarities in development, molecular biology, and transitional fossils (Long, 2014; National Human Genome Institute, 2019; University of California, Berkeley, n.d.; Rennie, 2002; Hordijk, 2017; National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Some (Krattenmaker, 2017) point to historic lows of the religious belief in creationism.
Not to worry, though, comedic counter-movements emerge with the Pastafarians from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Josh Elliott (2014) stated, “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was founded in 2005 as a response to Christian perspectives on creationism and intelligent design. It allegedly sprang from a tongue-in-cheek open letter to the Kansas School Board, which mocked educators for teaching intelligent design in schools.” The most distinguished scientists in Britain have been well ahead of other places in stating unequivocally the inappropriate nature of the attempts to place creationism in the science classrooms as a religious belief structure (MacLeod, 2006). Not only in law, there are creationist ‘science’ fairs for the next generations (Paley, 2001).
Politics, science, and religion become inextricably linked in Canadian culture and society because of the integration of some political bases with religion and some religious denominations with theological views masquerading as scientific theories, as seen with Charles McVety and Doug Ford (Press Progress, 2018a). Religious groups and other political organizations, periodically, show true colors (Ibid.). Some educators and researchers may learn the hard way about the impacts on professional trajectory if they decline to pursue the overarching theoretical foundations in biological and medical sciences – life sciences; some may be seen as attempting to bring intelligent design creationism into the classroom through funding council applications (Hoag, 2006; Government of Canada, 2006; Bauslaugh, 2008).
It can be seen as a threat to geoscience education too (Wiles, 2006). According to Montgomery (2015), the newer forms of young earth creationists with a core focus on the biblical accounts alone rather than a joint consideration with the world around us take a side step from the current history. “For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church considered literal interpretations of the stories in Genesis to be overly simplistic interpretations that missed deeper meaning,” Montgomery stated, “Influential thinkers like Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas held that what we could learn from studying the book of nature could not conflict with the Bible because they shared the same author” (Ibid.). Besides, the evidence can be in the granite too (Plait, 2008).
There does appear a significant decline in the theological and religious disciplines over time (McKnight, 2019). Khan (2010) notes the ways in which different groups believe in evolution or not. In fact, he (Ibid.) provides an index to analyze the degree to which belief groups accept evolution or believe in creationism. These beliefs exist in a weave alongside antivaccination at times (oracknows, 2016). Even for foundational questions of life and its origin, we come to the proposals reported by and found within modern science (Schuster, 2018). There continue to exist devoted podcasts (Ruba, 2019) to the idea of a legitimate – falsely, so-called – conversations about creationism.
Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist (2018d) reflected on the frustration of dealing with dishonest or credulous readings of the biological and geological record by young earth creationists in which only some, and in already confirming-biases, evidence gets considered for the reportage within the young earth creationist communities by the young earth creationist journalists or leadership. Live Science (2005) may have produced the most apt title on the entire affair with creationism as a title category unto itself with the description of an “Ambiguous Assault on Evolution” by creationism. There continue to be book reviews – often negative – of the productions of some theorists in the creationist and the intelligent design camps (Cook, 2013; Collins, 2006; Asher, 2014). Others praise books not in favour of creationism or intelligent design (Maier, 2009).
Mario Canseco in Business in Vancouver noted the acceptance by Canadians of evolution via natural selection and deep biological-geological time at 68% (2018b). One report stated findings of 40% of Canadians believing in the creation of the Earth in 6 days (CROP, 2017). The foundational problem comes from the meaning of terms in the public and to the community of professional practitioners of science/those with some or more background in the workings of the natural world, and then the representation and misrepresentation of this to the public. There is work to try violate the American Constitution to enforce the teaching of creationism, which remains an open claim and known claim by creationist leaders too (American Atheists, 2018).
We can see this in the public statements of leaders of countries as well, including America, in which the term “theory” becomes interpreted as a hunch or guess rather than an empirically well-substantiated hypothesis defined within the sciences. We can find the same with the definitions of terms including fact, hypothesis, and law:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. (NSCE, n.d.)
This happened with American Vice-President Mike Pence, stating, “…a theory of the origin of species which we’ve come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we.” (Monatanari, 2016). As Braterman (2017) stated – or corrected, “The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word ‘theory’ as used in science – that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeated testing. Pence’s argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call an equivocation – an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.” Vice-President Mike Pence equivocated on the word “theory.”
Some politicians, potentially a harbinger of claims into the future as the young earth creationist position becomes more marginal, according to O’Neil (2015), “Lunney told the House of Commons that millions of Canadians are effectively ‘gagged’ as part of a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion.” Intriguingly enough, and instructive as always, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) conducted Project Steve as a parody and an homage to the late Stephen Jay Gould, in which the creationists’ attempt to portray evolution via natural selection as a “theory in crisis” through the gathering of a list of scientists who may disagree with Darwin (n.d.) becomes one methodology to attempt to refute it or to sow doubt in the minds of the lay public. One American teacher proclaimed evolution should not be taught because of origination in the 18th century (Palma, 2019). One may assume for Newtonian Mechanics for the 17th and 18th centuries. RationalWiki, helpful as always, produced a listing of the creationists in addition to the formal criteria for inclusion on their listing of creationists (RationalWiki, 2019d), if curious about the public offenders.
Unfortunate for creationists, and fortunate for us – based on the humor of the team at the NCSE, there is a collected list of scientists named “Steve” who agree with the findings in support of evolution via natural selection in order to point to the comical error of reasoning in creationist circles because tens of thousands of researchers accept evolution via natural selection – and a lot with the name Steve alone – while a select fraction of one percent do not in part or in full (Ibid.). Still, one may find individuals as curators as in the case of Martin Legemaate who maintains Creation Research Museum of Ontario, which hosts creationist or religious views on the nature of the world. In the United States, there is significant funding for creationism on public dollars (Simon, 2014). Answers in Genesis intended to expand into Canada in 2018 (Mehta, 2017a) with Calvin Smith leading the organizational national branch (Answers in Genesis, 2019a). Jim McBreen wrote a letter commenting on personal thoughts about theories and facts, and evolution (McBreen, 2019). Over and over again, around the world, and coming back to Canada, these ideas remain important to citizens.
York (2018) wrote an important article on the link between the teaching of creationism in the science classroom and the direct implication of institutes built to set sociopolitical controversy over evolution when zero exists in the biological scientific community of practicing scientists. Other theories propose “interdimensional entities” in a form of creationism plus evolutionary via natural selection to explain life (Raymond, 2019). Singh (n.d.) argues for the same. This does not amount to a traditional naturalistic extraterrestrial intelligent engineering of life on Earth with occasional interference or scientific intervention, and experimentation, on the human species, or some form of cosmic panspermia.
This seems more akin to intelligent design plus creationism and an assertion of additional habitable dimensions and travellers between their dimension and ours. In other words, more of the similar without a holy scripture to inculcate it. [Ed. As some analysis shows later, this may relate to conspiratorial mindsets in order to fill the gap in knowledge or to provide cognitive closure.] Whether creationism or intelligent design, as noted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2019a):
“Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of “intelligent design.” They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call “irreducible complexity.” Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed – that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously….
…Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems…
… In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists’ claims. There may be alternative explanations…
… Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science…
… The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter – that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems – rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.
Disagreements exist between the various camps of creationism too. These ideas spread all over the world from the North American context, even into secular Europe (Blancke, & Kjærgaard, 2016). Canada remains guilty as charged and the media continue in complicity at times. Pritchard (2014) correctly notes the importance of religious views and the teaching of religion, but not in the science classroom. Godbout (2018) made the political comparison between anti-SOGI positions and anti-evolution/creationist points of view. This reflects the political reality of alignment between several marginally scientific and non-scientific views, which tend to coalesce in political party platforms or opinions.
Copeland (2015) mused, and warned in a way, the possibility of the continual attacks on empirical findings, on retention of scientists, on scientific institutes and research, reducing the status of Canada. This seems correct to me. He said:
High-level science advice has been removed from central agencies and is non-existent in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, despite trends to the contrary almost everywhere else;
Science-based departments, funding agencies and NGOs have faced crippling budget cuts and job losses — 1,075 jobs at Fisheries and Oceans and 700 at Environment Canada alone;
Opaque, underhanded techniques, such as the passage of the omnibus budget bill C-38 in June 2012, have weakened, reduced or eliminated scientific bodies, programs and legislative instruments. These include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Nuclear Safety Control Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Species at Risk Act.
Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and earned distinction as a “Lifetime Unachiever” and “Fossil of the Year”, while promoting the development of heavy oil/tar sands, pipelines, asbestos exports and extractive industries generally;
The long form census was abolished — against the advice of everyone dependent upon that data — prompting the resignation of the Chief Statistician;
Rare science books have been destroyed and specialized federal libraries and archives closed or downsized;
Commercially promising, business-friendly, applied R&D has been privileged over knowledge-creating basic science in government laboratories;
Scientists have been publically rebuked, are prevented from speaking freely about their research findings to the public, the media or even their international colleagues, and are required to submit scholarly papers for political pre-clearance (Ibid.)
To an American context, this can reflect a general occurrence in North America in which the Americans remain bound to the same forms of problems. The attempts to enter into the educational system by non-standard and illegitimate means continues as a problem for the North Americans with an appearance of banal and benign conferences with intentional purposes of evangelization. One wants to assume good will. However, the work for implicit evangelizations seems unethical while the eventual open statements of the intent for Christian outreach in particular seems moral as it does not put a false front forward. Indeed, some creationists managed to construct and host a conference at Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing (Callier, 2014). It was entitled “The Origin Summit” with superordinate support by the Creation Summit (Ibid.) Creation Summit states:
Our Mission
Creation Summit: confronting evolution where it thrives the most, at universities and seminaries!
We may have been banned from the classroom, but banned does not mean silenced. By booking the speakers and renting the facilities on or near college campuses, we can and still do have an impact for proclaiming the truth of science and the Bible.
Our Strategy
Creation Summit is visiting college and university campuses through-out the country, bringing world renowned scientists before the students. Modern sciences from astronomy to genetics have shown that Darwin’s story is no longer even a feasible theory. It just does not work. It is only a matter of getting the word out to the next generation. So we work with local Creation groups and schedule a seminar with highly qualified scientists with tangible evidence as speakers. Many of these scientists were once evolution believers, but their own research convinced them that evolution is not viable. Students, many for the first time ever, are discovering that the Bible is true – that science and Genesis are in total agreement. And, if Genesis 1:1 can be trusted, so can John 3:16. (Creation Summit, 2019)
A partisan group hosting a partisan and religious conference with the explicit purpose of reducing the quality of cultural knowledge, of science, on campuses, as they bring “scientists [who] were once evolution believers, but their own research convinced them that evolution is not viable” (Ibid.). Mike Smith, the executive director of the student group at MSU, at the time stated, the summit is “not overtly evangelistic… we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design. Once students realize they’re created beings, and not the product of natural selection, they’re much more open to the Gospel, to the message of God’s love & forgiveness” (Ibid.).
There can be inflammatory comparisons, as in the white nationalist and teaching & creationism and teaching example of Robins-Early (2019). This comes in a time of the rise of ethnic nationalism, often from the European heritage portions of the population, but also in other nation-states with religion and ultra-nationalism connected to them. Creationists see evolution as intrinsically atheistic and, therefore, a problem as taught in a standard science classroom. Beverly (2018) provided an update to the Christian communities in how to deal with the problem – from Beverly’s view and others’ perspectives – of “atheistic evolution.” Beverley stated, “The battle line that emerged at the conference is the same one that surfaced in 1859 when Charles Darwin released his famous On the Origin of Species. Then and now Christians separate into two camps – those who believe God used macroevolution (yes, Virginia, we descended from an ape ancestor about 7 million years ago), and those who abhor that theory (no, Virginia, God brought us here through special creation)… Leaders in all Christian camps agree that one of the main threats to faith in our day is the pervasiveness of atheistic evolution.” (Ibid.).
Their main problem comes from the evolution via natural selection implications of non-divine interventionism in the development of life within the context of the fundamental beliefs asserted since childhood and oft-repeated into theological schools, right into the pulpits. The same phenomenon happened with the prominent and intelligent, and hardy – for good reason, Rev. Gretta Vosper or Minister Gretta Vosper (Jacobsen, 2018m; Jacobsen, 2018n; Jacobsen, 2018o; Jacobsen, 2019n; Jacobsen, 2019o; Jacobsen, 2019q; Jacobsen, 2019r).
One can see the rapid growth in the religious groups, even in secular and progressive British Columbia with Mark Clark of Village Church (Johnston, 2017). Some note the lower education levels of the literalists, the fundamentalists and creationists, into the present, which seems more of a positive sign on the surface (Khan, 2010). Although, other trends continue with supernatural beliefs extant in areas where creationism diminishes. Supernaturalism seems inherent in the beliefs of the religious. Some 13% of American high school students accept creationism (Welsh, 2011). Khan (2010) notes the same about Alabama and creationism, in which the majority does not mean correct. Although, some Americans find an easier time to mix personal religious philosophy with modern scientific findings (Green, 2014). Christopher Gregory Weber (n.d.) and Phil Senter (2011) provide thorough rejections of the common presentations of a flood geology and intelligent design.
Garner reported in the Independent on the importance of the prevention of the teaching of creationism as a form of indoctrination in the schools, as this religious philosophy or theological view amounts to one with attempted enforcement – by religious groups, organizations, and leaders, often men – into the curricula or the standard educational provisions of a country (2014). Professor Alice Roberts (Ibid.) stated, “People who believe in creationism say that by teaching evolution, you are indoctrinating them with science but I just don’t agree with that. Science is about questioning things. It’s about teaching people to say ‘I don’t believe it until we have very strong evidence.’”
Vanessa Wamsley (2015) provided a great introduction to the ideal of a teacher in the biology classroom with education on the science without theist evangelization or non-theist assumptions:
Terry Wortman was my science teacher from my sophomore through senior years, and he is still teaching in my hometown, at Hayes Center Public High School in Hayes Center, Nebraska. He still occasionally hears the question I asked 16 years ago, and he has a standard response. “I don’t want to interfere with a kid’s belief system,” he says. “But I tell them, ‘I’m going to teach you the science. I’m going to tell you what all respected science says.’
Randerson (2008) provides an article from over a decade ago of the need to improve educational curricula on theoretical foundations to all of the life science. As Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society – circa 2008, said, “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe” (Ibid.).
Indeed, some state, strongly, as Michael Stone from The Progressive Secular Humanist, the abuse of children inherent in teaching them known wrong or factually incorrect ideas, failed hypotheses, and wrong theories about the nature of nature in addition to the enforcement of a religious philosophy in a natural philosophy/science classroom (2018). In any case, creationism isn’t about proper science education (Zimmerman, 2013).
Creation Ministries International – a major creationist organization – characterizes creationism and evolution as in a debate, not true (Funk, 2017). Pierce (2006), akin to Creation Ministries International, tries to provide an account of the world from 4,004 BC. People can change, young and old alike. Luke Douglas in a blog platform by Linda LaScola, from The Clergy Project, described a story of being a young earth creationist at age 15 and then became a science enthusiast at age 23 (2018). It enters into the political realm and the social and cultural discourses too. For example, Joe Pierre, M.D. (2018) described the outlandish and supernatural intervention claimed by Pat Robertson in the cases of impending or ongoing natural disasters. This plays on the vulnerabilities of the suffering.
However, other questions arise around the reasons for this fundamental belief in agency behind the world in addition to human choice rather than human agency alone. Dr. Jeremy E. Sherman in Psychology Today (2018), who remains an atheist and a proper scientist trained in evolutionary theory, attempts to explain the sense of agency and, in so doing, reject the claims of Intelligent Design. Regardless of the international, regional, and national statuses, and the arguments for or against, America remains a litigious culture. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents met more than mild resistance against their religious and supernaturalist, respectively, philosophies about the world, as noted by Bryan Collinsworth at the Center for American Progress.
He provided some straightforward indications as to the claims to the scientific status of Intelligent Design only a year or thereabouts after the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005. Legal cases, apart from humour as a salve, exist in the record as exemplifications of means by which to combat non-science as propositions or hypotheses, or more religious assertions, masquerading as science. All this and more will acquire some coverage in the reportage here.
Court Dates Neither By Accident Nor Positive Evidence for the Hypothesis
The theory that religion is a force for peace, often heard among the religious right and its allies today, does not fit the facts of history.
Steven Pinker
I feel like I have a good barometer of being more of a humanist, a good barometer of good and bad and how my conduct should be toward other people.
Kristen Bell
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other religions were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
Oliver Stone
God, once imagined to be an omnipresent force throughout the whole world of nature and man. has been increasingly tending to seem omniabsent. Everywhere, intelligent and educated people rely more and more on purely secular and scientific techniques for the solution of their problems. As science advances, belief in divine miracles and the efficacy of prayer becomes fainter and fainter.
Corliss Lamont
There exists indeed an opposition to it [building of UVA, Jefferson’s secular college] by the friends of William and Mary, which is not strong. The most restive is that of the priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the fatal harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they live. In this the Presbyterian clergy take the lead. The tocsin is sounded in all their pulpits, and the first alarm denounced is against the particular creed of Doctr. Cooper; and as impudently denounced as if they really knew what it is.
Thomas Jefferson
A common error in reasoning comes from the assertion of the controversy, where an attempt to force a creationist educational curricula onto the public and the young fails. This becomes a news item, or a series of them. It creates the proposition of a controversy within the communities and, sometimes, the state, even the nation, as a plausible scenario as the public observes the latter impacts of this game – literally, a game with one part including the Wedge Strategy of Intelligent Design proponents – playing out (Conservapedia, 2016; Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, n.d.). The Wedge Strategy was published by the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture out of the Discovery Institute as a political and social action plan with a serious concern over “Western materialism that (it claims) has no moral standards” and the main tenets of evolution create a decay in ethical standards because “materialists… undermined personal responsibility,” and so was authored to “overthrow… materialism and its cultural legacies” (Conservapedia, 2016). The Discovery Institute planned three phases:
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
(Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, n.d.)
The Discovery Institute (Ibid.) argued:
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment…
…The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating…
…Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
The strategy of a wedge into the institutions of the culture to renew the American landscape, and presumably resonating outwards from there, for the recapture of the citizenry with the ideas of “Western civilization,” human beings created in the “image of God,” and the rejection of Darwinian, Marxian, and Freudian notions of the human race as not “moral and spiritual beings” (Ibid.). As this game continues to play out, more aware citizens can become irritated and litigious about the infringement of Intelligent Design and creationism in the public schools through an attempted enforcement.
Then the response becomes a legal challenge to the attempted enforcement. From this, some of the creationist community cry victim or utilize this legal challenge as a purported example of the infringement on their academic freedom, infringement on their First Amendment to the American Constitution right to freedom of speech or “free speech,” or the imposition of atheism and secular humanism on the public (the Christian community, the good people), and the like; when, in fact, this legal challenge arose because of the work to bypass normal scientific procedure of peer-review, and so on, and then trying to force religious views in the science classroom – often Christian. Some creationist and biblical fundamentalist outlets point to the calls out of creationism as non-science, i.e., it goes noticed (The Bible is the Other Side, 2008). It even takes up Quora space too (2018).
Although indigenous cosmologies, Hindu cosmology, Islamic theology, and so on, remain as guilty in some contexts when asserted as historical rather than metaphorical or religious narratives with edificative purposes with, for example, some aboriginal communities utilizing the concept of the medicine wheel for counselling psychological purposes. Some remain utterly firm in devotion to a fundamentalist reading or accounting of Genesis, known as “literal Genesis,” as a necessity for scriptural inerrancy to be kept intact, as fundamental to the theology of the Christian faith without errors of human interpretation, and to the doctrines so many in the world hold fundamentally dear (Ross Jr., 2018). The questions may arise about debating creationists, which Bill Nye notes as an important item in the public relations agenda – not in the scientific one as no true controversy exists within the scientific community (Quill & Thompson, 2014). Nye explained personal wonder at the depth of temporality spoken in the moment here, “Most people cannot imagine how much time has passed in the evolution of life on Earth. The concept of deep time is just amazing” (Ibid.).
Hanley talked about the importance of sussing out the question of whether we want to ban creationism or teach from the principles of evolution to show why creationism is wrong (2014). Religion maintains a strong hold on the positions individuals hold about the origin and the development of life on Earth, especially as this pertains to cosmogony and eschatology – beginning and end, hows and whys – relative to human beings (Ibid.). Duly noting, Hanley labelled this a “minefield”; if the orientation focuses on the controversial nature of teaching evolution via natural selection, and if the mind-fields – so to speak – sit in religious, mostly, minds, then the anti-personnel weapons come from religion, not non-religion (Ibid.). Religion becomes the problem.
This teaching evolution, or not, and creationism, or not, continues as a global problem (Harmon, 2011). Harmon stated, “Some U.K. pro–intelligent design (ID) groups are also pushing to include ‘alternatives’ to evolution in the country’s national curriculum. One group, known as Truth in Science, calls for allowing such ideas to be presented in science classrooms—an angle reminiscent of ‘academic freedom’ bills that have been introduced in several U.S. states. A 2006 overhaul of the U.K. national curriculum shifted the focus of science instruction to highlight ‘how science works’ instead of a more ‘just the facts’ approach” (Ibid.).
Ghose, on education and religion links to creationism, stated, “About 42 percent espoused the creationist view presented, whereas 31 percent said God guided the evolutionary process, and just 19 said they believe evolution operated without God involved. Religion was positively tied to creationism beliefs, with more than two-thirds of those who attend weekly religious services espousing a belief in a young Earth, compared with just 23 percent of those who never go to church saying the same. Just over a quarter of those with a college degree hold creationist beliefs, compared with 57 percent of people with such views who had at most a high-school education, the poll found.”
Pappas (2014b) sees five main battles for evolutionary theory as taught in modern science against creationism: the advances of geology in the 1700s and the 1800s, the Scopes Trial, space race as a boon to the need for science – as Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson notes almost alone on the thrust of scientific advancement and funding due to wartimes stoked (e.g., the Americans and the Soviets), ongoing court battles, and the important Dover, Pennsylvania school board battle. Glenn Branch at the National Center for Science Education provided a solid foundation, and concise one, of the levels of who accepted, or not, the theory of evolution in several countries from around the world stating:
The “evolutionist” view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the “creationist” view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).
Consistently with previous polls, in the United States, acceptance of evolution was higher among respondents who were younger, with a higher level of household income, and with a higher level of education. Gender was not particularly important, however: the difference between male and female respondents in the United States was no more than 2%.
The survey was conducted on-line between September 7 and September 23, 2010, with approximately 1000 participants per country except for Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Russia, and Turkey, for which there were approximately 500 participants per country; the results were weighted to balance demographics. (2011a)
We can find creationist organizations around the world with Creation Research and Creation Ministries International in Australia, CreaBel in Belgium, Sociedade Criacionista Brasileira – SCB, Sociedade Origem e Destino, and Associação Brasilera de Pesquisa da Criação in Brazil, Creation Science Association of Alberta, Creation Science Assoc. of British Columbia (CSABC), Creation Science of Manitoba, L’Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Creation Science of Saskatchewan, Inc. (CSSI), Ian Juby – Creation Science Research & Lecturing, Big Valley Creation Science Museum, Creation Truth Ministries, Mensa – International Creation Science SIG, Creation Research – Canada, Creation Ministries International – Canada, and Amazing Discoveries in Canada, Assoc. Au Commencement in Franch, SG Wort und Wissen and Amazing Discoveries e. V. in Germany, Noah’s Ark Hong Kong in Hong Kong, Protestáns Teremtéskutató Kör and Creation Research – Eastern Europe in Hungary, Creation Science Association of India and Creation Research And Apologetics Society Of India in India, and Centro Studi Creazionismo in Italy (Creationism.Org, 2019).
Furthermore, クリエーション・リサーチ/Creation Research Japan – CRJ and Answers in Genesis Japan in Japan, Korea Assn. for Creation Research – KACR in Korea, gribu zināt in Latvia, CREAVIT (CREAndo VIsion Total) and Científicos Creacionistas Internacional in Mexico, Degeneratie of Evolutie?, Drdino.nl, and Mediagroep In Genesis in Netherlands, Creation Ministries International – New Zealand and Creation Research in New Zealand, Polish Creation Society in Poland, Parque Discovery in Portugal, Tudományos Kreacionizmus in Romania, Russia (None listed, though nation stated), SIONSKA TRUBA in Serbia, Creation Ministries International – Singapore in Singapore, Creation Ministries International – South Africa and Amazing Discoveries in South Africa, SEDIN – Servicio Evangelico Coordinadora Creacionista in Spain, The True.Origin Archive and Centre Biblique European in Switzerland, Christian Center for Science and Apologetics in Ukraine, and Creation Science Movement, Creation Ministries International – United Kingdom, Biblical Creation Society, Daylight Origins Society, Answers in Genesis U.K., Edinburgh Creation Group, Creation Resources Trust, Creation Research – UK, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, and Creation Discovery Project in the United Kingdom (Ibid.). Mehta (2019b) described the “weird” nature of some of the anti-evolution content produced by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, best known for Intelligent Design or ID. In these contexts of creationist and Intelligent Design groups attempting to enforce themselves on the population, American, at a minimum, court cases arise.
Of the most important court cases in the history of creationism came in the form of the Scopes Trial or the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, H.L. Mencken became more famous and nationally noteworthy, and historically, with the advent of this reportage on Tennessean creationist culture and anti-evolution laws in which individuals who taught evolution would be charged, and were charged, as in the case of John T. Scopes (Jacobsen, 2019). The cases reported by the NCSE (2019) notes the following other important cases:
1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas
1981, in Segraves v. State of California
1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard
1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District
1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District
1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education
2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al.
January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al.,
December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover
This points to the American centrality of the legal challenges and battles over biological sciences education in the public schools of the United States. The inimitable Eugenie C. Scott (2006) stated, “Judge John Jones III, the judge in the Kitzmiller case, was not persuaded that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution… the judge’s decision—laid out in a 139-page ruling—[stated] that ID was merely a form of creationism. His ruling that the new ID form of creationism is a form of religion and thus its teaching in science classes is unconstitutional is of course a great victory for science and science education.”
NCSE (n.d.) takes the stand on evolution as follows, “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”
I agree with the thrust of the statement; however, I disagree on the representation of creationism as a single set of belief structures or hypotheses about the world with creationism as such because the different formulations of the interpretations of religious orthodoxy exist within the record and into the present. These can include the young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, deistic creationism, rapid speciation, microevolution only (no macroevolution, i.e., speciation), intelligent design, and evolution via natural selection (nontheistic) views about the development, speciation, and growth of life on Earth (RationalWiki, 2019a).
I find the misrepresentation of the incorrect views, religious and theological orientations, of biological life not “scientifically inappropriate” but “pedagogically irresponsible” as this oversimplifies the issue and may not properly arm or equip students in their conversations with creationists, as the approach becomes creationism in general rather specific creationism(s), or in particular. The problem with creationism does not lie in the sciences in general.
Barbara J. King provided a decent rundown as to the hows and whys of evolution and the how nots and why nots of creationism (2016). In either case, for laughs and insight, though mean-spirited at times, one can return the deceased American journalist H.L. Mencken and commentary on the Scopes trial. As Fern Elsdon-Baker in The Guardiannotes, trust in science exists – not trust in evolution – is the core issue, which makes this biological science specific rather than other sciences, scientific methodology, or scientific findings in general, as the source of the sociopolitical controversy (2017). As we may reasonably infer from some reading between the lines, though uncertain, the focus comes from sectors of religious communities and interpretations of religious writings as factual accounts about the foundations and development, and so history, of the world and life. If looking at the writings of the prominent creationists, there can be, at times, conflations between biological sciences and physical sciences including cosmology in which “creationism,” as such, refers to “creation of the cosmos and life” instead of “creation of life alone.”
In fact, Elsdon-Baker (Ibid.) states, “Even more unexpectedly, 70% in the UK and 69% in Canada who expressed some personal difficulty with evolution also said they felt experts in genetics were reliable, even though genetics is a fundamental part of evolutionary scientific research.” In other words, as you may no doubt tell, we come to the realization of a specific denial, suspicion, or rejection of the community consensus or the evidence on this specific scientific issue alone, which may, potentially, point to the problem sitting with the specific disinformation and misinformation campaigns coming from the creationist circles. In other words, a long, ongoing, and recent history of the court battles for the inclusion of religion in the science, or not, with the cases overwhelmingly setting the precedent of religion as not science and, therefore, not permissible inside of the science classroom or the science curricula of America.
The Global Becomes Local, the Local Becomes Tangential
I could never take the idea of religion very seriously.
Joyce Carol Oates
My introduction to humanism was when my sixth grade teacher, seeing I had a decidedly secular bent, suggested I look up Erasmus and the Renaissance. The idea that mankind could create a better future through science and industry was very appealing to me. Organized religion just got in the way.
John de Lancie
In 1986, Gloria Steinem wrote that if men got periods, they ‘would brag about how long and how much’: that boys would talk about their menstruation as the beginning of their manhood, that there would be ‘gifts, religious ceremonies’ and sanitary supplies would be ‘federally funded and free’. I could live without the menstrual bragging – though mine is particularly impressive – and ceremonial parties, but seriously: Why aren’t tampons free?
Jessica Valenti
I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty—and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.
Kurt Vonnegut
True character arises from a deeper well than religion. It is the internalization of moral principles of a society, augmented by those tenets personally chosen by the individual, strong enough to endure through trials of solitude and adversity. The principles are fitted together into what we call integrity, literally the integrated self, wherein personal decisions feel good and true. Character is in turn the enduring source of virtue. It stands by itself and excites admiration in others.
Edward O. Wilson
If it were up to me, I would not define myself by the absence of something; “theist” is a believer, so with “atheist” you’re defining yourself by the absence of something. I think human beings work on yes, not on no. … humanist is a great term. …except that humanism sometimes is not seen as inclusive of spirituality. To me, spirituality is the opposite of religion. It’s the belief that all living things share some value. So I would include the word spiritual just because it feels more inclusive to me. Native Americans do this when they offer thanks to Mother Earth and praise the interconnectedness of “the two-legged and the four, the feathered and the clawed,” and so on. It’s lovely. … because it’s not about not believing. It’s about rejecting a god who looks like the ruling class.
Gloria Steinem
This connects to the global context of acceptance of the theoretical underpinnings and mass of empirical findings in support of evolution via natural selection compared to young earth creationism. As Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist, on other countries and religious versus scientific views in the political arena, notes, “…in the other countries, science and religion are not playing a zero-sum game” (Mehta, 2017a). He continues, “A new survey from YouGov and researchers at Newman University in Birmingham (UK) finds that only 9% of UK residents believe in Creationism. Canada comes in at 15%. It’s shockingly low compared to the 38% of people in the U.S. who think humans were poofed into existence by God a few thousand years ago. And on the flip side, 71% of UK respondents accept evolution (both natural and guided by God) along with 60% of Canadians. (In the U.S.? That number is 57%.)” (Mehta, 2017d; Swift, 2017; Hall, 2017). The statistical data differ for various surveys on the public. However, an important marker is the closeness of the outcomes in the numbers of individuals who believe in creationism or accept evolution.
Based on a 32-year-long survey, we can note the declines over decades in Australia, too (Archer, 2018). Of course, the ways in which questions on surveys get asked can shift the orientation of the participants in the surveys (Funk et al, 2019). Even so, some of the remarkable data about the United States indicates a wide acceptance of science quascience with the advancements bringing benefits to material comfort and wellbeing (Pew Research Center, 2009). Opposition to science from some religious circles exists within the historical record including Roman Catholic Christian Church’s opposition to the findings of Galileo Galilei in defense of the Copernican model of the Solar System with the Sun at the center and the discoveries of Charles Darwin about the general mechanisms for the changes in organisms over deep time with evolution via natural selection (Ibid.).
At the same time, “For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth,” Pew Research continued, “Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation. Even in the 20th century, some of the greatest scientists, such as Georges Lemaitre (the Catholic priest who first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory) and physicist Max Planck (the founder of the quantum theory of physics), have been people of faith” (Ibid.). The world remains a complicated place – clichés can fail to capture it. Even though, the thrust of creationism and Intelligent Design comes from religious institutions and devout individuals, except, perhaps, Dr. David Berlinski.
Nonetheless, the professional community of biological scientists or individuals with the necessity of a unified theory of the differentiation of life, as found in Darwinian theory and not creationism or Intelligent Design, for the proper comprehension of the natural world of life, of biology, or plant and animal life from the highest levels of professional scientific expertise rebuke – to use a theological term – assertions of creationists and Intelligent Design advocates (ACLU, n.d.a). Arguments from authority or quote-mining do not make much sense. However, arguments from authoritative authorities, e.g., major scientific bodies as those below, or quotes to add spice to an article, i.e., as those at the tops of section headings of this article, can make a certain sense – much more so than quote mining of individual scientists to attempt to refute evolution via natural selection rather than run the experiments to support or not – always not, so far – creationism or Intelligent Design.
The list of organizations against the teaching of creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classrooms amounts to a significant number of the major scientific bodies in the United States, which remains a massive scientific powerhouse:
National Academy of Sciences Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life’s history.
American Association for the Advancement of Science The [intelligent design] movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution… the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education.
American Anthropological Association The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however. Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.
National Association of Biology Teachers Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,’ scientific creationism,’ intelligent design theory,’ young earth theory,’ or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
Geological Society of America In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls creation science,’ which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.
American Institute of Biological Sciences The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science.
The Paleontological Society Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.
Botanical Society of America Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. (Ibid.)
The authority of science as a methodology and its steady erosion of faith with an incremental rise in the amount of evidence present creates problems for religious laity and some leadership. Take, for example, one of the largest religious denominations in the world. Science and the authority of scientific functional discoveries about the natural world changes the view of ardent faithful leaders, including amongst the leadership of the largest hierarchical organization on the planet.
The Roman Catholic Christian Pope affirms evolution via natural selection with a theological twist, but without creationist turns of the supernatural (Elliott, 2014). Hindu and Sunni Islam as huge religious denominations harbour different sentiments, or different flavours of similar orientations. Other times, the wide acceptance in some faiths can result in some states and branches of faiths combined rejecting, in a rather dramatic manner, the fundamental theory in all of life science. This can result in creationist and state-based activist backlash and repression of the population through an attack on their ability to self-inform about the most updated views of the nature of reality, of the world. Adnan Oktar, one of the main proponents of creationism in the Middle East, got caught in some shenanigans – criminal, legal, and otherwise (Branch, 2018). Aydin (2018) reported in Hurriyet Daily News:
Oktar’s deputy, Tarkan Yavaş, escaped during the police raid, according to security sources who stressed that the suspect was armed.
Some 79 suspects in the case were detained by noon July 11.
According to the detention warrant, Oktar and his followers are accused of forming a criminal organization, sexual abuse of children, sexual assault, child kidnapping, sexual harassment, blackmailing, false imprisonment, political and military espionage, fraud by exploiting religious feelings, money laundering, violation of privacy, forgery of official documents, opposition to anti-terror law, coercion, use of violence, slander, alienating citizens from mandatory military service, insulting, false incrimination, perjury, aggravated fraud, smuggling, tax evasion, bribery, torture, illegal recording of personal data, violating the law on the protection of family and women, and violating a citizen’s rights to get education and participate in politics.
In fact, Turkey banned the teaching of evolution (Williams, 2017). Williams said, “Turkey’s move to ban the teaching of evolution contradicts scientific thinking, and tries to turn the scientific method into a belief system – as if it were a religion. It seeks to introduce supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, and to assert that some form of truth or explanation for nature beyond nature. The ban is unscientific, undemocratic and should be resisted” (2017). The trial opened on Oktar and 225 associates in September of 2019 (The Associated Press).
According to Professor Rasmus Nielsen, a Danish biologist and professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, the most severe cases of the banning and censure of the teaching of evolution via natural selection comes from the Middle East and North Africa region with cases including Saudi Arabia as the worst of the worst and other populations of students and teachers in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Turkey rejecting the evidence somewhere between 25% and 75%, depending on the country (2016).
“The majority of Middle Eastern and North African scientists are, like scientists in the rest of the world, firmly convinced about the principles of evolution. However, they are often isolated and lack scientific networks. Examples of researchers that do great work on teaching evolution, often in isolation, include Rana Dajani at the Department of Molecular Biology at Hashemite University in Jordan and my good friend and former postdoc Mehmet Somel from the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey,” Nielsen explained, “Mehmet is a stellar new young researcher who is building up a very strong research group in evolutionary biology in Ankara, in the middle of increased direct and indirect pressure on the universities from Davutoğlu and Erdoğan’s Islamist government. There are serious worries that the government in Turkey is engaged in a process of reducing intellectual freedom at Turkish universities” (Ibid.).
The decline in the numbers who identify as creationist, of the waning of the days of much creationism in several parts of the world, comes with some signals to this slow and steady demise over time, but the “decline” may only appear as a decline without necessarily existence as a demise – perhaps an interlude or asymptote rather than a denouement. Of course, there exist hyper-optimists. Even Bill Nye may take a pollyannish mindset on the hardiness of beliefs in creationism, he posits the death throes of creationism in 20 years, presumably in America.
“In the United States there’s been a movement to put creationism in schools — this sort of pseudoscience thing — instead of the fact of life… People fight this fight in court constantly, and it wouldn’t matter except we need people to solve the world’s problems,” Nye said (Kennedy, 2014). The Kansas case in America became a phenomenon, dramatic. CBC (2005) provided some insight as to the 2005 dramatic events in Kansas and with leading scientists and researchers inside the United States and, presumably, elsewhere:
In September 2005, four months after this broadcast, 38 Nobel Prize-winning scientists sent a joint letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, arguing against the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. “Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific,” they wrote. “It cannot be tested as a scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”
In November 2005, the Kansas board voted 6-4 in favour of teaching intelligent design.
The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science and publications from Yale, Harvard and UCLA have all dismissed intelligent design as a pseudoscience.
Even by leading Roman Catholic Jesuit intellectuals and scientists, they consider intelligent design bad science and bad theology. Still, the United Kingdom banned creationism outright (Kaufman, 2014). A ban in a time of increased persecution of humanist activists around the world; a time with the increased persecution of open humanists (Humanists International, 2019). As Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel (2016) remark on the correct point of some creationists, in which the attempt to force religion on people would be a human rights problem, however, evolution does not equate to a religion and, therefore, cannot amount to a religious orientation or theory about the world (2016), making this line of creationist complaint moot or argumentation invalid, unsound.
Ken Ham views literalism as the only legitimate manner in which to believe in Christianity (Ross Jr., 2018), which, in essence, makes other Christians into heretics or heretical Christians. One can find highly trained and intelligent individuals including Dr. Hugh Ross who maintains an old earth creationist view and critiques, heavily, the young earth creationist viewpoint on the nature of the world (RationalWiki, 2019c).
With an old earth creationism, he adheres to a progressive creationism, which means one methodology to maintain the fundamentalist view on creation with a still-major modification of the scientific evidence in support of the age of the earth or life complementing the biblical interpretations of the world – theological views of the world (Ibid.). Indeed, he rejects the idea of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis and, thus, rejects intelligent design (Ibid.). He founded Reasons To Believe (2019).
The religious orientation of creationism remains an open secret with few or no one from the mainstream community of journalists and media personalities in Canada simply reading the statements of the websites of the associations and the individuals involved in the creationist efforts in Canada. Something to praise of the creationists more than the Intelligent Design advocates: honest and transparent on the websites as to their ministerial visions of the world and targeted objectives for the wider culture. The religious tone reflects cognitive biases. As Nieminen (2015) stated, “Creationism is a religiously motivated worldview in denial of biological evolution that has been very resistant to change. We performed a textual analysis by examining creationist and pro-evolutionary texts for aspects of ‘experiential thinking’, a cognitive process different from scientific thought.” Nieminen went on to describe testimonials, confirmation bias, simplification of data, experiential thinking, and logical fallacies pervaded the mindset of creationist thought (Ibid).
Some, including Jerry Coyne, do not accept the thrust of the intelligent design movement with support from biologists and judges in the United States (2019). Even at the individual level, others, such as Sarah Olson, continue the fight for personal enlightenment against the standard ignorance and misinformed education of youth, who impressively worked out the more accurate view about the nature of the world (Olson, 2019). To point more to the problem as religion in education, Answers in Genesis will teach a Bible-based worldview in the classroom in a Christian school (Smith, 2019). So it goes.
This Ain’t No Pillow Fight: Combat for Minds, Battles for Values, and Wars for Ideological Survival
I’m an atheist.
Dax Shepherd
The media—stenographers to power.
Amy Goodman
People tend to romanticize what they can’t quite remember.
Ira Flatow
Jesus is said to have said on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.
Cenk Uygur
The problem of unsafe abortion has been seriously exacerbated by contraceptive shortages caused by American policies hostile to birth control, as well as by the understandable diversion of scarce sexual health resources to fight HIV. All over the planet, conflicts between tradition and modernity are being fought on the terrain of women’s bodies. Globalization is challenging traditional social arrangements. It is upsetting economic stability, bringing women into the workforce, and beaming images of Western individualism into the remotest villages while drawing more and more people into ever growing cities. All this spurs conservative backlash, as right-wingers promise anxious, disoriented people that the chaos can be contained if only the old sexual order is enforced. Yet the subjugation of women is just making things worse, creating all manner of demographic, economic, and public health problems.
Michelle Goldberg
If it were up to me, I would not define myself by the absence of something; “theist” is a believer, so with “atheist” you’re defining yourself by the absence of something. I think human beings work on yes, not on no. … humanist is a great term. …except that humanism sometimes is not seen as inclusive of spirituality. To me, spirituality is the opposite of religion. It’s the belief that all living things share some value. So I would include the word spiritual just because it feels more inclusive to me. Native Americans do this when they offer thanks to Mother Earth and praise the interconnectedness of “the two-legged and the four, the feathered and the clawed,” and so on. It’s lovely. … because it’s not about not believing. It’s about rejecting a god who looks like the ruling class. I like to say that the last five-to-ten thousand years has been an experiment that failed and it’s now time to declare the first meeting of the post-patriarchal, post-racist, post-nationalist age. So let’s add “post-theological.” Why not?
Gloria Steinem
Several signals point to problems within the communities of the young earth creationist, old earth creationist, and the flat earth communities. Those who take these hypotheses as serious challenges to Darwinian theory (Masci, 2019). They exist in non-trivial numbers. Signals of a decline in the coherence of the creationist communities including the in-fighting between individuals who adhere to a flat earth theory of the structure of the world and creationists, or between young earth creationists and old earth creationists. An old earth becomes the next premise shift, as the dominoes fall more towards standard interpretations of empirical evidence provided through sciences (Challies, 2017; Graham; 2017). It can cross well beyond the realm of the absurd into young earth creationists mocking believers in the theory of the flat earth, as taking the biblical accounts of the world with an interpretation seen as much too direct for them (Mehta, 2017b).
There can be in-fighting and ‘debate’ between young earth creationists and old earth creationists (Mehta, 2018b). Esther O’Reilly at Young Fogey stated, “It’s not every day that you get to see Ken Ham pick a fight with Matt Walsh, but it happened this week, after the conservative firebrand posted a video explaining why he rejects young Earth creationism. Walsh states emphatically that the evidence has spoken loudly across multiple disciplines, that this is not a hill anybody should be dying on, and that evangelical Christians are damaging the impact of their witness by making it so” (O’Reilly, 2018; Matt Walsh, 2018; Ham, 2018).
As Hemant Mehta stated, “Pat Robertson dismissed Young Earth Creationism as ‘nonsense’ that’s ‘so embarrassing’ and how all that ‘6,000-year stuff just doesn’t compute’” (Mehta, 2019c). Ken Ham, CEO and Founder of Answers in Genesis, stated, “It’s not those of us who take God at his Word who are ‘embarrassing,’ it’s the other way around! Those like Pat Robertson who adopt man’s pagan religion, which includes elements like evolutionary geology based on naturalism (atheism), and add that to God’s Word are destructive to the church. This compromise undermines the authority of the infallible Word” (Ibid.).
As a result, Ken Ham wants Pat Robertson to visit the Ark Encounter (Mehta, 2019f). Prominent creationists, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, wanted to – and probably still want to – save America from the evils of evolution through the ongoing, and seemingly never-ending, 150+ year battle over evolution with an emphasis on the construction of and distribution of their own On the Origin of the Species (Hinman, 2009). Cameron wanted to save America with a movie, too. Mehta (2017c) stated, “You know, conservative Christians got us into this mess. I don’t trust them to get us out of it. I especially don’t trust people who got together right before the election to do the exact same thing when that clearly failed. Whatever they were doing, it pissed God off something fierce. Why would He be on their side now? I’m also not sure how Cameron plans to unite people when his personal goals involve blocking women from ever obtaining an abortion and convincing transgender people it’s all in their minds.”
Even for those with, more or less, inerrant view of some of the standard North American purported holy texts, the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community – at least some – do not want to teach the perspective or theory of the world, the earth, as only 6,000-years-old, as this amounts to a “lie” (Mehta, 2018c). They stated, “As reported by the JC last week, last months’ notice from the UOHC warned strictly orthodox educational institutions not to sign contracts with councils for early years funding, because the [Department of Education] guidelines state councils should not fund institutions which present ‘creationism as fact.’ The notice stated that ‘they place great doubts, Heaven forfend, in the creation of the world with the lie that the world is ancient, may their mouths be filled with earth. ‘This is a lie that earlier sages of blessed memory contended with, and now they wish to infiltrate us with this falsehood’” (Ibid.). In the Canadian portion of North America, we can find the differences in the provinces and some correlates with education, age, and political and social orientation (e.g., left or right ideological commitments). The NCSE reported on some of this back in 2011.
Glenn Branch (2011b) at the National Center for Science Education stated, “Accordingto Ekos’s data tables (PDF, pp. 77-79), creationism was strongest in the Atlantic provinces (25.1 percent) and Alberta (18.8 percent), stronger among women (18.8 percent) than men (9.5 percent), stronger among those with “right” ideology (22.4 percent), and stronger with those who attended religious services more than once in the past three months (38.4 percent). The “natural selection” option was particularly popular among respondents in Quebec (67.6 percent), less than twenty-five years old (73.9 percent), with university education (72.8 percent), and with “left” ideology (74.2 percent).” The gap in the numbers emerge more in America than elsewhere, as we can see. In fact, some questions around the foundations of consciousness remaining incomprehensible form a reason for doubting evolutionary processes, for the claims of evolution via natural selection among atheists in the United Kingdom and in Canada.
On the point about human consciousness, for instance, Catherine Pepinster in Religion News spoke to an important concern of the unexplained as a gap in the acceptance or full endorsement of evolution via natural selection (2017). She states:
Around 64 percent of adults in the U.K. found it easy to accept evolutionary science as compatible with their personal beliefs; it was lower for Canadian adults at 50 percent.
Somewhat fewer people with religious beliefs found evolution easy to square with their faith: 53 percent in the U.K. and 41 percent in Canada.
1 in 5 U.K. atheists and more than 1 in 3 Canadian atheists were not satisfied with evolutionary theory. Specifically, they agreed that “evolutionary processes cannot explain the existence of human consciousness.” (Ibid.)
As stated in The Sensuous Curmudgeon (2018), “Our understanding is that Canada has nothing like the Constitutional separation of church and state which prevails in the US, so we can’t really evaluate their opinions about what their schools should teach,” in response to survey data about school curricula. This may create problems into the future as the teaching of evolution may face ongoing attacks on its legitimacy in illegitimate and dishonest ways on the basis, often, of literal reading of a purported holy text.
Douglas Todd in the Vancouver Sun (2017) spoke to two concerns about the advancement of the fundamental idea in all of life science. Todd agrees with some of the aforementioned points. He stated:
There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us. The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism.
It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence. The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.
It is “scientism.”
Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”
(Ibid.)
P.Z. Myers notifies the public to the, more or less, creationist, more directly teleological, orientation of some in Silicon Valley with some of their views on the nature of simulations and the universe (2016). This seems more complete trust in the notion of the progress of scientific knowledge leading to the moral advancement of the species. Nick Bostrom, Paul Davies, Elon Musk, Sean M. Carroll, David Chalmers, and others posit a simulation universe as more probable than a natural universe. A natural universe would host the simulation universe. One needs stable enough universes for natural entities to evolve and some of the beings sufficiently technologically inclined and intelligent to produce powerful technologies, and then have an interest in the production of simulations of the real universe in the first place.
However, one needs a natural universe for a simulation universe, as a host universe for the virtual universe. In other words, the probability sits not on the side of simulation, but on the side of natural as the ground probability state for the universe inhabited by us. Unless, of course, one posits an extremely large number of simulated universes within one natural universe. In other words, the Bostrom, Davies, Musk, Carroll, Chalmers, and others crowd seem wrong in one consideration of naturality versus virtuality and correct in another on the assumption of the civilizations with an orientation towards mass simulation, where this leads to some brief thoughts about the future of science with novel principles to become adjunct to standard principles of modern science as an evolved, and evolving, epistemology: proportionality of evidence to claims, falsifiability, parsimony, replicability, ruling out rival hypotheses, and distinguishing causation from correlation. These provide a foundation for comprehension of the natural world as a derivation from centuries of science with some positing epistemological naturalism as foundational to the scientific methodology or epistemology, as supernatural methodologies or supernatural epistemologies failed in coherence or in the production of supportive evidence.
The next principles on science will include precision in the fundamental theories and correlations unfathomed by current human science in which simulatability becomes the next stage of scientific epistemology, where computation becomes more ubiquitous and the utilization of computations to construct artificial environments to test hypotheses about the real world in artificial ones created to simulate the real world (while in the real world, as a real embedment with the virtual). The virtual becomes indistinguishable from the real at this level. At that point, when the virtual modelling becomes indistinguishable from the ‘real’ world insofar as we model the world from our sensory input and processing, the virtual will be virtual by old definitions, but will be seen as real by practical definitions. Then the new science should be simulation science.
Scientific skepticism, naturalism, and the like seems the most accurate view on the nature of the world. Most religious interpretations are teleological and seem more and more like failed philosophies. One can observe this in the decline in fundamentalist religion and in the decline of theology as a discipline. It is increasingly seen as something that people once did before proper science to put boundaries on any metaphysical speculation. In some way, the physical seems like as a limited form of materialism and materialism as a limited form of naturalism and naturalism as a limited form of informationism/informationalism. Some science incorporates simulations now. However, it is expensive. Cheap information processing further into the future will mean cheap simulations, and so cheap simulatability and the emergence of simulation as a derivative of scientific methodology into a principle of science. The over-trust in the advancements of science, though, to Todd (2011), reflects the feeling of fundamentalist Christians.
This being upset “at what they characterize as a liberal attack on the family, many evangelical leaders – like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Benny Hinn, Sarah Palin and Canada’s Charles McVety – take combative stands, which the conflict-hungry news media gobble up,” Todd stated (Ibid.). The media, according to Todd (Ibid.), remains complicit in this sensationalism with deleterious effects on the general culture. The general public and academia can be wiser at times. Counter events to educate about the evolutionary critiques against intelligent design exist too (McGill University, 2006). Some consequences even arise with the earning of tenure for some “intelligent design” professors (Slabaugh, 2016). However, the subtle use of language for political effect may imbue social and political power to religious ideas. In America, these can become significant issues with the ways in which political language can be code for creationism as noted by Waldman (2017). Freethought people can struggle for inclusion in the general public, too.
Some preliminary research indicates atheists treat Christians better than Christians treat atheists (Stone, 2019). One may extrapolate, though on thin preliminary evidence, the differential bidirectional treatment of atheists to non-Christians and non-Christians to atheists as a real phenomenon. Sometimes, secular people form community in the form of satire out of frustration or for general fun. The era where Pastafarians continue to struggle for acceptance by the wider community at any rate (Henley, 2019). To the question of teaching creationism alongside evolution in the science classroom, America gets harder problems, as in the school board candidates in St. Louis (Mehta, 2019a). Barbara A. Anderson wanted to teach both; Louis C. Cross III wanted “all aspects” addressed; and William Haas avoided the question and considered the “least of our” (their) problems as creationism and intelligent design (Ibid.). Public figures and politicians, and policymakers, set the tone for a country.
They hold an immense responsibility in North America and abroad to characterize science in an accurate way. Religious communities should clean their own house too. Otherwise, for private and personal religious beliefs, these can become seen front and center for the funding of religious projects with public money. For example, one such project came in the Ark Encounter in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Ark hired 700 people to build it, which came to the price tag of $120-million dollars (Washington Post, 2017). Ken Ham intends the Ark Encounter to reach the general public with his supposed gospel akin to the attractions for science to the public through “Disney or Universal or Smithsonian” (Ibid.). 42,000 small donors funded the Ark (Ibid.). Religion becomes political, becomes politics.
Define “Global” and “Diverse” for Me
It is the chief characteristic of the religionofscience that it works.
Isaac Asimov
I am also atheist or agnostic (I don’t even know the difference). I’ve never been to church and prefer to think for myself.
Steve Wozniak
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.
Stephen Hawking
Am I a criminal? The world knows I’m not a criminal. What are they trying to put me in jail for? You’ve lost common sense in this society because of religious fanaticism and dogma.
Jack Kevorkian
When I worked on the polio vaccine, I had a theory. Experiments were done to determine what might or might not occur. I guided each one by imagining myself in the phenomenon in which I was interested. The intuitive realm is constantly active—the realm of imagination guides my thinking.
Jonas Salk
I never professed any theology. And it’s complicated by my Jewishness. Obviously, being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. I was concerned that if I were to explicitly disavow any religiosity, it could get distorted into an effort to distance myself from being Jewish—and I thought that was wrong, given that there is anti-Jewish prejudice.
For years I would go to temple, but I suddenly realized it doesn’t mean anything to me. So I decided, I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to pretend. During my service I never pretended to be a theist. It just never became relevant that I wasn’t, and I guess I was not as conscious of the discrimination nontheists felt. But I’ve always been opposed to any imposition of religion. I fought hard, for example, with other members of Congress to oppose any notion that a religious group getting federal funds could discriminate in hiring.
When I took the oath of office, I never swore and said, “So help me God.”
Barney Frank
As Ryan D. Jayne, Staff Attorney at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in response to a recent conservative article, stated, “A recent article by a creationist hack for the National Review (the flagship conservative publication) preposterously argues that Canada is stifling religious freedom and that we are headed in the same direction. But Canada is doing just fine, thank you very much, and the U.S. government needs less religion, not more.” Jayne, astute in the concision of a proper and educated response, pointed to the state of affairs in secular democracies – to varying degrees, e.g., Canada and the United States, and then in theocracies, e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the intuitive understanding comes in the form of the level of restriction of religious freedom found in these areas.
“The best way to protect religious freedom is to keep the government secular. This includes enforcing laws that give protections regardless of the whims of the majority religion. A law prohibiting female genital mutilation in a Muslim-majority country would not have much effect if it allowed Muslims to opt out of the law for religious reasons,” Jayne continued, “and would be tantamount to the government simply sanctioning the abhorrent religious practice… Advocates of religious freedom only oppose state/church separation when they are comfortably in the majority and trust their government to favor their particular set of religious beliefs” (Ibid.).
Creationism in a number of ways represents a mind set or a state of mind. It seems, as a postulation, as if a reflection of a fundamentalist mindset outsourced into one domain with a happenstance in the biological sciences. The origin of the universe and life, and so us, treads directly on the subject matter of evolution via natural selection with the importance of the biological sciences and some proclamations of religious faith. This can seem rather straightforward, but this creates some issues, too. Not only limited to the United States or Canada, as reported by the University of Toronto, the creationist movement went into a global phenomenon (Rankin, 2012). Rankin continues to note the original flavor of creationism as breaking apart into “young Earth creationism, intelligent design and creationism interpreted through the lens of other world religions” (Ibid.). The numbers of the creationist movement, in its modern manifestation, continue to increase with the varieties as well as the numbers (Ibid.). An increase well beyond the borders of the United States and the Christian faith (Ibid.).
Noting, of course, the fundamental belief in the Christian creationist movements with the artificer of life and, in some interpretations, the cosmos as the Christian God, even in the genteel foundational individuals of the more sophisticated movement entitled Intelligent Design, i.e., Dr. William Dembski – a well-educated, highly intelligent, and polite person – who said, “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God” (Environment and Ecology, 2019). In short, the final premise of the Intelligent Design movement becomes “the Christian God” with every other item as a conditional upon which “the Christian God” becomes the eventual conclusion of the argument. This does not represent a diversity. The undertone remains other religions may harbour some eventual truth in them insofar as they adhere to some principles or beliefs best defined as Christian.
“Sometimes I marvel at my own naiveté. I wrote The End of Christianity thinking that it might be a way to move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old by addressing the first objection that they invariably throw at an old-earth position, namely, the problem of natural evil before the Fall. I thought that by proposing my retroactive view of the Fall, that I was addressing their concern and thus that I might see some positive movement toward my old-earth position,” Dembski confessed, “Boy, was I ever wrong. As a professional therapist once put it to me, the presenting problem is never the real problem. I quickly found out that the young-earth theologians I was dealing with were far less concerned about how the Fall could be squared with an old earth than with simply preserving the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1–3, namely, that the earth and universe are just a few thousand years old. Again, we’re talking the fundamentalist impulse to simple, neat, pat answers. Now I’ll readily grant that the appeal to complexity can be a way of evading the truth. But so can the appeal to simplicity, and fundamentalism loves keeping things simple” (Rosenau, 2016).
It represents, mostly, a Christian movement with a wide variety of institutes and other organizations connected within it, including Access Research Network, Biologic Institute, Center for Science & Culture at Discovery, Institute Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, Intelligent Design Network, and Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (Access Research Network, 2019; Biologic Institute, 2019; Discovery Institute, 2019; IDEA, 2019; Intelligent Design Network, 2019; IDURC, 2019). The movement spread into the Islamic and Hindu worlds too (Rankin, 2012), as reported, “For example, in the 1980s the Turkish Minister of Education asked the Institute for Creation Research in the United States to translate Scientific Creationism into Turkish. Since then creationism has been taught in Turkey’s high school science curriculum.” This non-scientific and religious movement exists in Australia, South America, and South Korea now (Ibid.), including amongst Israeli and American Jewish fundamentalists who formed the Torah Science Foundation in 2000 (Ibid.).
One can find this in religious groupings too. According to the Hare Krishna, “First, Maha-Vishnu transforms some of His spiritual energy into the primordial material elements. He then glances over them, activating them with the energy of time, which underlies all transformations in the material world. Matter then evolves from subtle elements (sound, form, touch, etc.) to gross (earth, water, fire, etc.)” (2019). Then sound becomes the most important element in the creation of the world, in particular the hearing and speaking of spiritual sound, received from the Vedas or its spiritual world for the freedom of the souls to achieve a material creation (Ibid.). This amounts to a creationism.
Leslie Scrivener (2007) more than a decade ago reported on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a spoof on the Intelligent Design movement based on the creations of an Oregon State University physics graduate named Bobby Henderson. Henderson wrote, “Let us remember there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster” (Ibid.).
For the Raëlian religion or movement, there were messages dictated to an individual named Rael as to how the life on Earth is not the product of a supernatural engineer or a random world with a non-random naturalistic selection process, but, rather, the creations of a “scientifically advanced people” who chose to make beings in their own image in a process called scientific creationism (Ashliman, 2003). In examination of these movements more as this helps provide a basis to see the ideational movement in the society with regards to the non-scientific propositions floating around the minds of the public, including famous and creative types, who further provide popular cover for these views with movies including the following – media complicit once more:
Origins (IMDb, 1985) with Russ Bixler, Donn S. Chapman, and Paul Nelson.
The Genesis Solution (IMDb, 1987) with Ken Ham.
Steeling the Mind (IMDb, 1993) with Kent Hovind.
Genesis: The Creation and the Flood (IMDb, 1994) with Annabi Abdelialil, Omero Antonutti, and Sabir Aziz.
Startling Proofs (IMDb, 1995) with Dave Breese, Keith Davies, and David Harris.
A Question of Origins (IMDb, 1998) with Roger Oakland, Dan Sheedy, and Mark Eastman.
Genesis: History or Myth (IMDb, 1999a) with Kent Hovind, Nick Powers, and Terry Prewitt.
Creation Seminar (IMDB, 1999) with Kent Hovind.
Earth: Young or Old? (IMDb, 2000a) with John Ankerberg, Hugh Ross, and Kent Hovind.
Creation Science 102 (IMDb, 2000b) with Kent Hovind.
Creation Science 101 (IMDb, 2001a) with Kent Hovind.
Creation Science 103 (IMDb, 2001b) with Kent Hovind.
Creation Science 104 (IMDb, 2001c) with Kent Hovind.
Christ in Prophecy. (IMDb, 2002) with David Reagan, Nathan Jones, and Jobe Martin.
The Creation Adventure Team: A Jurassic Ark Mystery (IMDb, 2003a) with Buddy Davis, Andy Hosmer, and Brad Stine.
Answering the Critics (IMDb, 2003b) with Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, and Jonathan Sampson.
A Creation Evolution Debate (IMDb, 2003c) with Kyle Frazier, Hugh Hewitt, and Kent Hovind.
Six Days & the Eisegesis Problem (IMDb, 2003d) with Ken Ham
Design: The Evolutionary Nightmare (IMDb, 2004a) with Tom Sharp.
Creation in the 21st Century (IMDb, 2004b) with David Rives, Carl Baugh, and Bruce Malone.
Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time (IMDb, 2004c) with Tom Sharp.
The Genesis Conflict (IMDb, 2004d) with Walter J. Veith.
Three on One! At Embry Riddle (IMDb, 2004e) with Kent Hovind, Jim Strayer, and R. Luther Reisbig.
Old Earth vs. Young Earth (2004f) with Jaymen Dick and Kent Hovind.
Berkeley Finally Hears the Truth (IMDb, 2004g) with Kent Hovind.
The Big Question (IMDb, 2005b) with Rupert Hoare, Roger Phillips, and John Polkinghorne.
Creation Seminar (IMDb, 2005a) with Kent Hovind.
Creation Boot Camp (IMDb, 2005c) with Daniel Johnson, Eric Hovind, and Kent Hovind.
The Intelligent Design Movement: How Intelligent Is It? (IMDb, 2005d) with Georgia Purdom.
The Case for a Creator (IMDb, 2006a) with Lee Strobel, Tom Kane, and Don Ranson.
Dinosaurs and the Bible (IMDb, 2006b) with Jason Lisle.
Noah’s Flood: Washing Away the Millions of Years (IMDb, 2006c) with Terry Mortenson.
The Longevity Secret: Is Noahs Ark the Key to Immortality? (IMDb, 2007a) with T. Lee Baumann, John Baumgardner, and Walter Brown.
Creation and Evolution: A Witness of Prophets (IMDb, 2007b) by James F. Stoddard III.
Ancient Secrets of the Bible (IMDb, 2007c) with Richard S. Hess, Grant Jeffrey, and Michael Shermer.
Faithful Word Baptist Church (IMDb, 2007d) with Steven L. Anderson, David Berzins, and Roger Jimenez.
Noah’s Ark: Thinking Outside the Box (IMDb, 2007e) with Mark Looy, John Whitcomb, and Ken Ham.
God of Wonders (IMDb, 2008b) with John Whitcomb, Dan Sheedy, and Don B. DeYoung.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (IMDb, 2008a) with Ben Stein, Lili Asvar, and Peter Atkins.
Red River Bible & Prophecy Conference (IMDb, 2008c) with David Hocking, James Jacob Prasch, and Carl Teichrib.
The Earth Is Young (IMDb, 2009a) with Michael Gitlin.
Evolutionist vs. Evolution (IMDb, 2009b) with Walter Brown, Kent Hovind, and Kenneth Miller.
The Creation: Faith, Science, Intelligent Design (IMDb, 2010a) with Robert Carr, Art Chadwick, and Alvin Chea.
All Creatures Great and Small: Microbes and Creation (IMDb, 2010b) with Georgia Purdom.
Wonder of the Cell (IMDb, 2010c) with Georgia Purdom.
Creation Today (IMDb, 2011a) with Eric Hovind, Paul Taylor, and Ben Schettler, and ongoing into the present as a television series.
Genesis Week (IMDb, 2011b) with Ian Juby and Vance Nelson for 23 episodes.
Starlight and a Young Earth (IMDb, 2011c) with Charles Jackson.
Hard Questions for Evolutionists (IMDb, 2011c) with Kent Hovind.
Creation Bytes! (IMDb, 2012a) with Paul Taylor.
What’s Wrong with Evolution? (IMDb, 2012b) with Eric Hovind, John Mackay, and Paul Taylor.
Not All ‘Christian’ Universities Are Christian (IMDb, 2012c) with Jay Seegert, Eric Hovind, and Paul Taylor.
The Six Days of Genesis (IMDb, 2012d) with Paul Taylor.
Deconstructing Dawkins (IMDb, 2012e) with Paul Taylor.
Prometheus (IMDb, 2012f) with Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender.
How to Answer the Fool (IMDb, 2013b) with Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.
Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith (IMDb, 2013a) with Ray Comfort, Kevan Brighting, and Alessandro Bianchi.
The Interview: Past, Present, Future (IMDb, 2013c) with John Mackay and Ken Ham.
Creation Training Initiative (IMDb, 2013d) with Mike Riddle, Buddy Davis, and Carl Kerby.
The Comfort Zone (IMDb, 2013e) with Ray Comfort, Emeal Zwayne, and Mark Spence.
Creation and the Last Days (IMDb, 2014a) with Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, and Paul Zachary Myers.
Post-Debate Answers Live W/Ken Ham (IMDb, 2014b) with Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom.
The Pre & Post Debate Commentary Live (IMDb, 2014c) with Eric Hovind, Paul Taylor, and Terry Mortenson.
Design(er) (IMDb, 2014d) with Georgia Purdom.
The Genetics of Adam & Eve (IMDb, 2014e) with Georgia Purdom.
Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A (IMDb, 2015a) with Kent Hovind, Mary Tocco-Hovind, Bernie Dehler.
Open-Air Preaching (IMDb, 2015b) with Ray Comfort and Emeal Zwayne.
A Matter of Faith (IMDb, 2016a) with Jordan Trovillion, Jay Pickett, and Harry Anderson.
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels (IMDb, 2014) with Donald Batten, Alessandro Bianchi, and Pieter Borger.
Kent Hovind: An Atheist’s Worst Nightmare (IMDb, 2016a) with Michael Behe and Kirk Cameron.
The Building of the Ark Encounter (IMDb, 2016b) with Craig Baker, Brad Benbow, and Ken Ham.
The Atheist Delusion (IMDb, 2016c) with Tim Allen, Ray Comfort, and Richard Dawkins.
Alien: Covenant (IMDb, 2017) with Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, and Billy Crudup.
With some reflection, one can note the lengths some believers of fundamentalist stripes must strive in order for coherence in the worldview, but one who affirms the evidence of evolution via natural selection first becomes much less stuck in the mud.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England stated, “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it’s not a theory alongside theories. It’s not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this… ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” (BBC News, 2002; BBC News, 2009) Indeed, Andrew Brown in The Guardiancorrectly identified the manner in which the focus on creationism as a Christian phenomenon limits the reach or scope of understanding on the nature of the problem (2009). PEW Research (2009) identified one of the main issues as the theological implications of the theory of evolution. The populations in the United States who appear below the average of the nation in acceptance of evolution via natural selection are the Jehovah’s Witnesses (8% accept), Mormons (22% accept), Evangelical Protestants (24% accept), historically Black Protestant (38% accept), and Muslims (45% accept) (Khan, 2009).
In fact, the ADL defined creationism, creation science, and intelligent design as religious and supernatural accounts of the world, where science deals with the natural and, thus, the views of creationism, creation science, and intelligent design amount to non-scientific and theological/supernatural propositions (2019), as you may no doubt recall in some of the conclusions from the court cases or legal contexts in the United States from earlier. The Freedom From Religion Foundation of Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker provides summarization of creationism, too, in an article by Andrew L. Seidel (2014). The Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren (2019) state:
Many Bible scholars have pointed out that the Genesis account of creation gives a Hebrew poetic description of the reality that God created the heavens and the earth by his word. A detailed scientific explanation of how God’s word brought creation into existence is not in view in the biblical narratives of creation. Rather, as scholars have shown, these narratives contrast markedly with ancient Near Eastern myths about cosmic origins. Unlike the deities in other texts who are depicted as giving birth to the material world, the God of the Bible speaks creation into existence. The Bible reveals a divine presence that is both intimate in its closeness and exalted in its transcendence. God is invisible, yet accessible to those who seek him in a faithful response to his self-revelation. Moreover, although God’s wisdom is revealed in the working of the natural order, the depths of God’s wisdom are beyond the reach of human understanding.
From a Christian perspective, the biblical description of God’s creative work is also necessary for understanding human nature. Christians af rm the clear statement of Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth. As the pinnacle of creation, human beings are the deliberate work of God. Human beings are created in the image of God. Atheistic models of evolutionary origins are incompatible with the biblical witness when they fail to account for human beings bearing the image of God.
In terms of the physical world, the Bible tells that God created matter from nothing, and then ordered the chaotic matter into an ordered reality (Genesis 1:1-2; Romans 4:17; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 11:3). Historically, Christian theologians have interpreted this as meaning creation ex nihilo—out of nothing.3 This point is important for a number of reasons. First, it reminds us that only God is eternal, and that God’s ordered creation serves his plan. Second, in expressing that God has brought creation to be out of nothing, the biblical authors express the power of the Creator God. Third, Scripture reveals that God is distinct from creation, and sovereignly rules over it. (2019)
RationalWiki catalogues some religious orientations on creationism: Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hare Krishna, Raëlism, and None (2019a). PEW Research provided a summary of some of the views of the various religious groups (2009), in which they stated:
Buddhism
Many Buddhists see no inherent conflict between their religious teachings and evolutionary theory. Indeed, according to some Buddhist thinkers, certain aspects of Darwin’s theory are consistent with some of the religion’s core teachings, such as the notion that all life is impermanent.
Catholicism
The Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of all life. However, this acceptance comes with the understanding that natural selection is a God-directed mechanism of biological development and that man’s soul is the divine creation of God.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ first public statement on human origins was issued in 1909 and echoed in 1925, when the church’s highest governing body stated, “Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes.” However, several high-ranking officials have suggested that Darwin’s theory does not directly contradict church teachings.
Episcopal Church
In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement.” The church has also expressed skepticism toward the intelligent design movement.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that “God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation.”
Hinduism
While there is no single Hindu teaching on the origins of life, many Hindus believe that the universe is a manifestation of Brahman, Hinduism’s highest god and the force behind all creation. However, many Hindus today do not find their beliefs to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Islam
While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.
Judaism
While all of the major movements of American Judaism – including the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches – teach that God is the creator of the universe and all life, Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that “the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a ‘myth’ or ‘story’ made up to explain the origin of all things.” The church rejects evolution or any theory that “denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture.”
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
In 1969, the Presbyterian Church’s governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still, the church has stated that it “should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution,” and church doctrine continues to hold that man is a unique creation of God, “made in His own image.”
Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution and stating that creation science “can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts.” Some Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out in favor of the intelligent design movement.
United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means “to see our faith in a new way.”
United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church’s highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that “science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church’s] theology.” Moreover, the church states that “many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible … are intended to be metaphorical
[and]
were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science.”
The purpose remains the innervation of a non-theological discipline as a theological set of fields or as the study of God – to bring God into science and vice versa. One may observe this in non-literate-based spiritualities and practices bound to longer histories, often, than the traditionally considered ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ religious orientations; those grounded in oral traditions. One can look to aborigine, aboriginal, first peoples’, indigenous, native, or originals’ traditions about the nature of nature. The world around us as inhabited by spirits and forces, often with a singular capital “C” Creator behind the works of it.
Indigenous belief structures in various parts of the world, and in Canada, assert a creation narrative. In C2C Journal, reportage by Robert MacBain and Peter Shawn Taylor (2019) covered some of the aspects of bad history on the part of some aboriginal communities due to historical circumstance as a consequence of colonization, they state:
Today, approximately 30,000 Ojibways live in a sprawling region north of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. And thanks to a recent Ontario court decision, they could soon be in line for a massive and unprecedented financial gift from Canadian taxpayers. It’s a giveaway made possible by an imaginative rewriting of two nearly 170-year-old signed treaties, a legal system that appears to have fallen under the spell of native mysticism, a federal government that’s given up defending the taxpayers’ interests and a judge who thinks she can read the minds of long-dead historical figures and mistakenly believes the Ojibway have lived in Northwestern Ontario since time immemorial…
Rather than sticking to the historical facts, Justice Hennessy extensively quoted an Ojibway elder’s account of his people’s cosmology and creation story, and then herself claimed: “As the last placed within creation, the Anishinaabe [Ojibways] could not act in ways that would violate those relationships that came before their placement on the land and that were already in existence across creation.” Setting aside her curious acceptance of Indigenous mythology as fact, we know that at the time of their “creation” the Anishinaabe could not have been placed in Northwestern Ontario. They originated on the Atlantic Coast and are essentially newcomers to the area, having arrived after European explorers. (MacBain & Taylor, 2019)
MacBain and Taylor firmly judge the captivation of Justice Hennessy with indigenous creationism, akin to the notion of a several thousand years old Earth with human beings as a special creation in their current form and separate from the rest of creation (Ibid.). Vine Deloria, a Standing Rock Sioux, argued for an indigenous interpretation of the world with a young planet, existence of humans alongside dinosaurs, a worldwide flood, the Middle Eastern origin of the Native Americans, the increased levels of carbon dioxide leading to “gigantism,” and, of course, a lack of acceptance in evolution (Brumble, 1998).
Bailey (2014) notes the asymmetry in the treatment of different types of creationism, where indigenous creationism gets a pass in some circles. However, creationism remains a wrong theory in a scientific sense and only one set of particular religious interpretations of origins of life and, often, the universe. Canadian Museum of History (n.d.) stated, “For the Haudenosaunee, the earth was created through the interplay of elements from the sky and waters. The different Iroquoian-speaking peoples tell slightly different versions of the creation story, which begins with Sky Woman falling from the sky.”
Several Coast Salish nations exist in Canada with creation stories (Kennedy & Bouchard, 2006) including Cowichan, Esquimault, Halalt, Homalco, Hwlitsum, Klahoose, K’omoks, Lake Cowichan, Lyackson, Musqueam, Qualicum, Saanich, Scia’new, Semiahmoo, Shishalh, Snaw-Naw-As, Snuneymuxw, Songhees, Squamish, Stó:lõ, Stz’uminus, Tla’amin (Sliammon), Tsawwassen, Tsleil-Waututh, and T’Sou-ke; each, likely, as with other complex civilizations – with or without technology – harbour creation stories or mythologies asserted as factual accounts of the world. The Canadian Encyclopedia states: Coast Salish culture and traditional knowledge survive through oral histories. Although Coast Salish legends vary from nation to nation, they often feature many of the same spiritual figures and tell similar creation stories.
One example of such a tale is the story of how Old-Man-In-The-Sky created the world, animals and humans. These stories also highlight the importance of certain creatures and elements of nature, such as the salmon and red cedar, which are considered sacred for spiritual reasons and because of the valuable resources they provide for the people (Ibid.). On some non-Middle Eastern (and co-opted by the Europeans) mythologies, we can look to Australia:
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep – or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
“Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms.”
The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
This time she ventured into the dark caves on the mountainsides. The bright light that radiated from her awoke the spirits and after she left insects of all kinds flew out of the caves. The Sun Mother sat down and watched the glorious sight of her insects mingling with her flowers. However once again the Father urged her on.
The Mother ventured into a very deep cave, spreading her light around her. Her heat melted the ice and the rivers and streams of the world were created. Then she created fish and small snakes, lizards and frogs. Next she awoke the spirits of the birds and animals and they burst into the sunshine in a glorious array of colors. Seeing this the Father of All Spirits was pleased with the Sun Mother’s work.
She called all her creatures to her and instructed them to enjoy the wealth of the earth and to live peacefully with one another. Then she rose into the sky and became the sun.(Williams College, n.d.)
Now, we can see this reflected in others with supernatural intervention or anthropomorphization of the objects of the world, as if the cosmos amounted to one big dramatic play. National Museum of the American Indian (2019) describes the Mayan foundational narrative as follows:
In this story, the Creators, Heart of Sky and six other deities including the Feathered Serpent, wanted to create human beings with hearts and minds who could “keep the days.” But their first attempts failed. When these deities finally created humans out of yellow and white corn who could talk, they were satisfied. In another epic cycle of the story, the Death Lords of the Underworld summon the Hero Twins to play a momentous ball game where the Twins defeat their opponents. The Twins rose into the heavens, and became the Sun and the Moon. Through their actions, the Hero Twins prepared the way for the planting of corn, for human beings to live on Earth, and for the Fourth Creation of the Maya.
Native American origin narratives or superstitions reflect some of the similar things:
…the Makiritare of the Orinoco River region in Venezuela tell how the stars, led by Wlaha, were forced to ascend on high when Kuamachi, the evening star, sought to avenge the death of his mother. Kuamachi and his grandfather induced Wlaha and the other stars to climb into dewaka trees to gather the ripe fruit. When Kuamachi picked the fruit, it fell and broke open. Water spilled out and flooded the forest. With his powerful thoughts, Kuamachi created a canoe in which he and his grandfather escaped. Along the way they created deadly water animals such as the anaconda, the piranha, and the caiman. One by one Kuamachi shot down the stars of heaven from the trees in which they were lodged. They fell into the water and were devoured by the animals. After they were gnawed and gored into different ragged shapes, the survivors ascended into the sky on a ladder of arrows. There the stars took their proper places and began shining….
… Iroquois longhouse elders speak frequently about the Creator’s “Original Instructions” to human beings, using male gender references and attributing to this divinity not only the planning and organizing of creation but qualities of goodness, wisdom, and perfection that are reminiscent of the Christian deity. By contrast, the Koyukon universe is notably decentralized. Raven, whom Koyukon narratives credit with the creation of human beings, is only one among many powerful entities in the Koyukon world. He exhibits human weaknesses such as lust and pride, is neither all-knowing nor all-good, and teaches more often by counterexample than by his wisdom…
… These actions commemorate events that occurred in the mythic first world. At that time a formless water serpent, Amaru, was the first female being. Her female followers stole ritual flutes, kuai, from the males of that age and initiated Amaru by placing her in a basket while they blessed food for her. Insects and worms tried to penetrate the basket, and eventually a small armadillo succeeded in tunneling through the earth into the centre of the women’s house. The creator, Yaperikuli, led the men through this tunnel, and the resulting union of males and females marked the beginning of fertile life and the origin of all species. Thus, an individual girl’s initiation is brought into alignment with cosmic fertility…
… South American eschatological thinking and behaviour share common ground with Christian eschatology. (Sullivan, & Jocks, 2019).
As Zimmerman (2010) noted, the general tenor of the public and educational conversation around creationism continues for a long time and has been extant in the North American landscape for a longer time than even Stephen Jay Gould, who is long dead at this time. Bob Joseph (2012) states:
Most cultures, including Aboriginal cultures, hold creationism as an explanation of how people came to populate the world. If an Aboriginal person were asked their idea of how their ancestors came to live in the Americas the answer would probably include a creation story and not the story of migration across a land bridge.
Take the Gwawaenuk creationism story for example. The first ancestor of the Gwawaenuk (gwa wa ā nook) Tribe of the west coast of British Columbia is a Thunderbird. The Thunderbird is a super natural creature who could fly through the heavens. One day, at the beginning of time, the Thunderbird landed on top of Mt Stevens in the Broughton Archipelago at the northern tip of Vancouver Island. Upon landing on Mt. Stevens, the Thunderbird transformed into human form, becoming the first ancestor of the Gwawaenuk people. This act signals the creation of the Gwawaenuk people as well as defining the territory which the Gwawaenuk people would use and protect.
Now, the Indigenous perspectives of a Thunderbird landing on a mountain and transforming into a human being may sound unusual and a little silly but to a Gwawaenuk person it doesn’t sound any more unusual or silly than a virgin birth, or a person walking on water, coming back from the dead, or parting the Red Sea.
Tallbear (2013) describes the problems in the inappropriate sensitivities of indigenous communities to genomics testing, which may lead to a disintegration of mythologies considered or asserted true simply because of the connection to the original inhabitants of the land, i.e., those mythologies about people groups assumed as true when stating that the indigenous inhabitants have been there since time immemorial. These amount to empirical claims and, by most accepted anthropological and historical standards, wrong ones because of the migratory patterns found through genetics and other studies into the origins and travels of ancient homo sapiens. Christian and indigenous mythologies can impede research and the lead to a furtherance of factually wrong beliefs about the world. Indeed, genetics studies can combat the problems of racism to show what the biological scientists have known since Darwin: the unified nature of the ‘race’ seen in the human species more in line with modern biological terminology and evidence rather than more non-scientific or pre-modern scientific conceptualizations, or sociological terminologies, found in colloquialisms like “race.”
In examination of the world’s indigenous and religious creation stories, individual adherents may not amount to creationists as they may accept the naturalistic evidence in support of evolutionary theory; however, the base claims of the indigenous and religious belief structures purport a supernaturalism incompatible with the processes of scientific epistemology in the modern period and, therefore, as accounts of the cosmos and life equate to creationism or creationist claims with the first evaluation as creation stories. iResearchNet (2019) catalogues creationism into a number of more distinct categories: flat earth, geocentric creationism, young earth uniformitarianism, restitution creationism or gap creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, Paley-an creationism with a Thomist theological framework, evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, and the tried-and-untrue young earth creationism. They state the fundamentals of the literalist creationism found in Christian variations of creationism as follows:
Creation is the work of a Trinitarian God.
The Bible is a divinely inspired document.
Creation took place in 6 days.
All humans descended from Adam and Eve.
The accounts of Earth in Genesis are historically accurate records.
The work of human beings is to reestablish God’s perfection of creation though a commitment to Jesus. (Ibid.)
Regardless, as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2019b) states, creationist views reject scientific findings and methods:
Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently, “intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a “creationist” is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationism in its various forms is not the same thing as belief in God because, as was discussed earlier, many believers as well as many mainstream religious groups accept the findings of science, including evolution. Nor is creationism necessarily tied to Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Some non-Christian religious believers also want to replace scientific explanations with their own religion’s supernatural accounts of physical phenomena.
In the United States, various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth. But even these creationists hold very different views…
…No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints…
…Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because “no one has ever seen evolution occur.” This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations…
…Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning…
…Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.
Across the world and through time, creation stories emerge to provide some bearing as to the origin of the world and of life, but the narratives failed to match the empirical record of the world in which the sciences emerged and advanced while the mythologies died out due to a loss of adherents or continued to stagnate in the minds of the intellectuals and leadership of the communities of supernatural and spiritual beliefs. Evolution via natural selection stands apart from and opposed to, often, the creationist arguments and lack of evidences in addition to the assertions of the creation stories of all peoples throughout time into the present, insofar as a detailed naturalistic accounting for the variety of life forms on Earth with a formal encapsulation with functional mechanisms supported by hypotheses and the hypotheses bolstered by the evidence then and now.
Institutional Teleology, Purpose-Driven Hierarchies: Associations, Collectives, Groups, and Organizations with a Purpose
We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people. The same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation.
Dan Savage
Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome – and even comforting – than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.
Carolyn Porco
The lesson here, and through the years I’ve seen it repeated over and over again, is that a relatively small group of agitators, especially when convinced God is on their side, can move corporate America to quake with fear and make decisions in total disregard of the Constitution that protects against such decisions.
Norman Lear
In almost every professional field, in business and in the arts and sciences, women are still treated as second-class citizens. It would be a great service to tell girls who plan to work in society to expect this subtle, uncomfortable discrimination-tell them not to be quiet, and hope it will go away, but fight it. A girl should not expect special privileges because of her sex, but neither should she “adjust” to prejudice and discrimination.
Betty Friedan
The reason I prefer the sledgehammer to the rapier and the reason I believe in blunt, violent, confrontational forms for the presentation of my ideas is because I see that what’s happening to the lives of people is not rapierlike, it is not gentle, it is not subtle. It is direct, hard and violent. The slow violence of poverty, the slow violence of untreated disease. Of unemployment, hunger, discrimination. This isn’t the violence of some guy opening fire with an Uzi in a McDonald’s and forty people are dead. The real violence that goes on every day, unheard, unreported, over and over, multiplied a millionfold.
George Carlin
The next time believers tell you that ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word ‘trinity.’ The word ‘trinity’ appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord’s Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.
Dan Barker
There has been important editorial work on the general post-truth era, which reflects the creationist way of knowing the world (Nature Cell Biology, 2018). It may reflect a general anti-science trend over time connected to Dunning-Kruger effects. The problem of supernaturalism proposed as a solution to the issues seen in much of the naturalistic orientation of scientific investigation creates problems, especially in publics, by and large, bound to religious philosophies.
In North America, we can see teleological belief groups adhering to a supernaturalistic interpretation of science, when science, in and of itself, remains naturalistic, technical, and non-teleological. For instance, the Baptist Creation Ministries exists as a problematic ministry (2019). In their words, “Our goal is to reintroduce biblical creationism back to North America. If people don’t believe they are created, they will not see their need for the Saviour.” The Baptist Creation Ministries earned praise from Pastor Scott Dakin from Ambassador Baptist Church in Windsor, Ontario, Pastor Douglas McClain from New Testament Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, Pastor David Kalbfleisch from Cornerstone Baptist Church in Newmarket, Ontario, Pastor Mark Bohman from Forest City Baptist Church in London, Ontario, and Pastor Jeff Roberts from Maranatha Baptist Church in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Canadians like supernaturalism with a hunk of the supernaturalists approving of the creationist outlooks on the nature of the real world. We can see echoes throughout Canada in this regard.
Humanists, Atheists, & Agnostics of Manitoba (2019) take the appropriate stance of calling young earth creationism by its real name. Coggins (2007) compared the creationist museums here and elsewhere, in brief. Even the media, once more, Canada Free Press has been known to peddle creationism (RationalWiki, 2018a). Tim Ball is one creationist publishing in Canada Free Press (RationalWiki, 2019e). The late Grant R. Jeffrey was one creationist, involved in Frontier Research Publications, as a publication permitting creationism as purportedly valid science (2017, October 27). Emil Silvestru holds the title of the only karstologist in the creationist world (RationalWiki, 2018b). Silvestru may reflect the minority of trained professionals in these domains [Ed. Please do see the Project Steve of the National Center for Science Education]. Faith Beyond Belief hosted members of the creationist community on the subject matter “Is Biblical Creationism Based on Science?” (2019).
Canadian Atheist, which covers a wide variety of the flavors of atheism, produced a number of articles on creationism or with some content indirectly related to creationism in a critical manner, especially good material of ‘Indi’ (Jacobsen, 2017a; MacPherson, 2014a; MacPherson, 2014b; Haught, 2019; Jacobsen, 2019a; Jacobsen, 2019b; Jacobsen, 2019c; Jacobsen, 2019d; Jacobsen, 2019e; Jacobsen, 2019f; Jacobsen, 2019g; Jacobsen, 2019h; Jacobsen, 2019i; Indi, 2019; Jacobsen, 2019j; Jacobsen, 2019k; Jacobsen, 2019l; Jacobsen, 2019m; Indi, 2018a; Indi, 2018b; Indi, 2018c; Jacobsen, 2018d; Law & Jacobsen, 2018; Jacobsen, 2018e; Jacobsen, 2018f; Jacobsen, 2018g; Jacobsen, 2018h; Indi, 2018e; Jacobsen, 2018i; Indi, 2018f; Jacobsen, 2018j; Jacobsen, 2018p; Indi, 2017a; Indi, 2017b; Jacobsen, 2017d; Indi, 2017c; Rosenblood, 2015; Indi, 2015; MacDonald, 2015; Themistocleous, 2014; MacPherson, 2014c; MacPherson, 2014d; Abbass, 2014a; MacPherson, 2014e; Indi, 2014; Abbass, 2014b; MacPherson, 2014f).
Some of the more obvious cases of creationism within Canada remain the perpetually fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of Christianity with the concomitant rise of individual textual analysts and pseudoscientists, and collectives found in museums (travelling or stationary), associations, a special interest group, and different websites. One of the main national ones as a satellite for the international group: Creation Ministries International (Canada). As another angle of the fundamental issue from RationalWiki – a great resource on this topic, “Science, while having many definitions and nuances, is fundamentally the application of observation to produce explanation, iteratively working to produce further predictions, observations and explanations. On the other hand, creationism begins with the assertion that a biblical account is literally true and tries to shoehorn observations into it. The two methods are fundamentally incompatible. In short, ‘creation science’ is an oxymoron” (2019b).
That is to say, the use of the world to produce empirical factual sets in order to comprehend the nature of nature as the foundation of science rather than a ‘holy’ textual analysis in order to filtrate selected (biased in a biblical manner, or other ways too) information to confirm the singular interpretation of the purported divinely inspired book. No such process as creation science exist, except in oxymoronic title or name – either creationism or science, not both.
A large number of organizations in Canada devoted to creationism through Creation Ministries International (2019e). They function or operate out of “Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America” (Ibid.). Creation Ministries International (Canada) remains explicit and clear on its intention and orientation as a “Bible first” organization and not a “science first” organization:
Our heart as a ministry is to see the authority of God’s Word spread throughout the body of Christ… we work hard to move your people to a position of deeper faith, trusting the Bible as the actual Word of God that is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…
…We believe person-to-person evangelism is, unquestionably, still the most effective way to win souls. That said, almost all of our presentations are geared towards a Christian audience because we believe our calling is to the building up of the LORD’s church, equipping believers with answers for their faith so they can do personal outreach more effectively…
Our goal is to show how a plain reading of Genesis (following the established historical-grammatical hermeneutic) produces a consistent theology and is supported by the latest scientific evidences!
CMI is a ‘Bible first’ (not ‘science first’) ministry. Our emphasis is on biblical authority and a defence of the faith, refuting skeptics’ and atheists’ attacks on Scripture, not to marginalize, minimize or ostracize fellow Christians.
As an apologetics (rather than polemic) ministry we seek to educate, equip, and inform Christians about the importance of consistency when interpreting Scripture and developing a Biblical worldview. We will gently point out inconsistencies when Genesis is interpreted to include evolution and millions of years, encouraging people who hold those views to consider evidence against them (both Biblical and scientific). We want your congregation to learn to love the truths that God has communicated to us in His Word! We equip the believer and challenge the skeptic, ultimately for the glory of God…
… An outside ministry can often re-energize the importance of the topic by injecting a new perspective from a different ‘face’, and often the resident creationist will be reinvigorated themselves by having an outside expert in the field provide new insight…
… As an apologetics ministry our goal is to help pastors grow their congregations in their faith to the point where people know that God’s Word is true whether they have a specific answer or not, and make Jesus the Lord of their life…
… We understand that teachers will be judged with a greater strictness. (James 3:1) Because of these principles we leave out poorly researched scientific evidences for creation, and favour the evidences that have been rigorously investigated.
(Creation Ministries International Canada, 2019a)
In short, non-scientific, or quasi-scientific, processes connected to fundamentalist and literalist on the interpretations of the Bible to comprehend the nature of the world as a ministry with an explicit aim of arming believers – followers and teachers of the Gospel, or both – to spread the glory of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, and to challenge the skeptic. If this orientation seems not explicit enough as to the evangelistic nature of non-science and theological imposition on the general culture, and into the educational systems, we can examine the doctrines and beliefs of Creation Ministries International:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs…
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God…
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
God created from the beginning male and female in his own image with different but complementary characteristics. It is thus contrary to God’s created order to attempt to adopt a gender other than a person’s biological sex… (2019b)
In other words, Creation Ministries International states ad nauseam the fundamentalist and literalist Christian belief in the Bible as the source of all proper knowledge about the natural world with contradictory evidence as sufficient to reject as unreliable because this goes against the word of their supposed god. An evangelistic ministry devoted to blur the line between science and theology, or religion and legitimate domains of natural philosophical enquiries. Within this framework of understanding the definitional and epistemological differences between the sciences and religion, and between the propositions of creationism and evolution via natural selection, the rules and parameters, and operations, of science become unused in a legitimate sense by creationists and, therefore, any proposition or proposal of a debate between an “evolutionist” (a creationist epithet for an individual who rejects creationist as non-science and affirms the massive evidence in favour evolution via natural selection in addition to the more rigorous epistemological foundations of evolutionary theory with the standard approaches in other sciences) and a creationist as creationism amounts to a biblical, religious, or theological worldview and evolution via natural selection equates to the foundations of the biological and medical sciences as a well-substantiated scientific theory about life, flora and fauna. No scientific controversy exists in practice – only an educational as per attempts to force the issue into schools or attempt a so-called wedge as in the Wedge Strategy, legal as per the legal challenges following from the educational debacles, and sociopolitical as per the largely ignorant public about the foundations of the life sciences and a sector of the public credulous enough or deprived of proper scientific educations enough to become vulnerable to these oppressions, one – and no empirical controversy could exist in theory, Q.E.D. Overall, we can note the real effects on the general population with the reduction in the quality of the culture if science becomes included in a wider or more generalized definition of that which we define as culture, where this seems legitimate, to me, as science infuses all aspects of culture because of the ideas and with the influence of the technological progress dependent on the discoveries of science – as applications of science.
They have a speaker’s bureau in a manner of speaking (Creation Ministries International Canada, 2019a). The speakers include – and may be limited to – Richard Fangrad, Clarence Janzen, Jim Mason, Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn, Thomas Bailey, Matt Bondy, Tom Tripp, and Jim Hughes (Ibid.). Creation Ministries International exists as a Canadian charity and a certified member of the Canadian Council of Christian Charities with an incorporation in 1978 and a more rapid growth phase in 1998 with its current headquarters in Kitchener, Ontario (Ibid.). Richard Fangrad is the CEO of Creation Ministries International (Canada) (Ibid.). Clarence Janzen is a retired high school science teacher (Ibid.). Dr. Jim Mason is a former experimental nuclear physicist (Ibid.). Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn is a founding member of the Creation Science Association of Quebec and former employee/technical instructor of Bombardier Aerospace (Ibid.). Thomas Bailey is an event planner for Creation Ministries International and one of the co-hosts of Creation Magazine Live! (Ibid.). Matt Bondy is a computer scientist and the Chief Operations Officer at Creation Ministeries International Canada (Ibid.). Tom Tripp is a former a lab analyst, a computer programmer, or an HR trainer (Ibid.). Jim Hughes is a former of statistics and urban planner (Ibid.). The more complete backgrounds and educational trainings exist on the website. Rod Walsh from Australia was invited to conduct tours across Canada, which can indicate the international work and travel networks of the lecturers (Creation Ministries International, 2019c).
The questions, aside from the statements of religion proposed as statements of faith and science, may arise around the issues of the churches within Canadian society opening to bringing in speakers as the aforementioned (Creation Ministries International, 2019d). If one examines those churches and then the speakers, we can note them:
· September 19, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Winkler Evangelical Mennonite Mission Church in Winkler, MB.
· September 19, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the Bonnyville Baptist Church in Bonnyville, AB.
· September 20, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Christian Life Church in Winnipeg, MB.
· September 20, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the West Edmonton Baptist Church in Edmonton, AB.
· September 20, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Christian Life Church in Winnipeg, MB.
· September 20, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at the Bornholm Free Reformed Church in Bornholm, ON.
· September 20, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at the Trinity Lutheran Church in Leader, SK.
· September 21, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at the Church of the Open Bible in Swift, SK.
· September 21, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Gladstone Christian Fellowship Church in Glasstone, MB.
· September 21, 2019 with Matt Bondy at Hilltop Community Church in Whitecourt, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Living Faith Fellowship in Herbert, SK.
· September 22, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the Community Christian Centre in Slave Lake, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Morden Church of God in Morden, MB.
· September 22, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Assiniboia Apostolic Church in Assiniboia, SK.
· September 22, 2019 with Matt Bondy at Mayerthorpe Baptist Church in Mayerthorpe, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Tomm Tripp at Rosenort Evangelical Mennonite Church in Rosenort, MB.
· September 26, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Lavington Church in Coldstream, BC.
· September 27, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Kaslo Community Church in Kaslo, BC.
· September 27, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Alberton Baptist Church in Alberton, PE.
· September 28, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Glad Tidings Tabernacle in Murray River, PE.
· September 28, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Grindrod Gospel Church in Grindrod, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Jim Hughes at Scarborough Baptist Church in Scarborough, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Matt Bondy at New Life Pentecostal Church in Gravenhurst, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Calvary Church in Charlottetown, PE.
· September 29, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Hopewell Worship Centre in Kitchener, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Bethany Baptist Church in Barriere, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at Kinmount Baptist Church in Kinmount, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Okanagan Valley Baptist Church in Vernon, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at Cloyne, Flinton, and Kaladar Area Churches.
· September 29, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Charlottetown Bible Chapel in Charlottetown, PE.
· September 30, 2019 as a retreat for pastors and christian leaders in Huntsville, ON.
(Creation Ministries International, 2019d)
Here, we come to the easy realization with some minor research as to less than half of a month’s worth of speaking engagements for the Creation Ministries International dossier. A purely religious audience from a ministry with a Bible-first orientation rather than a science first orientation and to churches and worship centres, i.e., the creationist movement as portrayed by Creation Ministries International (Canada) by FAQ statements, values and beliefs statements, speakers listing, and upcoming speakers’ engagements becomes a religious and theological movement attempting with some modicum of success in practice to blur the line of science and theology to the public with miserable failures to the community of scientific experts in the life sciences
One of the more active pseudoscience organizations comes in the form of the Creation Science Association of British Columbia. The Creation Science Association of BC, as others, states their overarching values and goals at the outset. Something worth praising, as this represents openness and intellectual honesty, and transparency, in presentation of belief systems guiding the movements, as follows:
• We believe that the Bible is inerrant, and that salvation is by grace through faith in the one Mediator, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
• We affirm creation by God in six days, a young universe and Earth, and a worldwide flood in the days of Noah.
• We cooperate with similar ministries across Canada.
Our special concern is to battle the evolutionary worldview and to promote creation as described in the Bible. We’ve been serving BC churches since 1967. (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019a)
One wonders as to what one needs saving, where this makes one reflect on the research on existential anxiety or death anxiety. They view the Bible as a source of evidence (Ibid.). This sources the problem in a rapid way. One can use this as a theory of mind heuristic. Often, the literal interpretation is the root problem at the intellectual level. Conspiratorial states of mind and death anxiety/existential anxiety may be the bedrock at the emotional level. The propositions before the science or the scientific research begins, which remains against standard scientific procedure to acquire data from the world to inform, from first principles, one’s view of the world rather than work from religious assertions of the world. That is to say, Creation Science Association of BC functions as a faith-based organization; a euphemism in “faith-based organization” meaning a “religious organization,” meaning they aren’t scientific but theological.
In this manner, they’re open about principles, but dishonest about presentation: George Pearce, Christine Pearce, Richard Peachey, Gerda Peachey, Denis Dreves, The Bible Science Association of Canada (1967), now known as the Creation Science Association of Canada, was formed in 1967 (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019b). This group seems much less active over time into the present than the others with a focus on Egyptian Chronology and the Bible in September at the Willingdon Church in Burnaby, British Columbia featuring Patrick Nurre (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019c).
Other churches inviting non-science posing as science in British Columbia include Faith Lutheran Church in Surrey, Newton Fellowship Church in Surrey, Willingdon Church in Burnaby, Trinity Western University (Church) in Langley, Johnston Heights Church in Langley, Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, New Westminster Community Church in New Westminster, Faith Lutheran Church in Surrey, Free Reformed Church of Langley in Langley, Cloverdale Free Presbyterian Church in Surrey, Renfrew Baptist Church in Vancouver, Calvary Baptist Church in Coquitlam, Franklin Chinese Gospel Chapel in Vancouver, New Westminster Orthodox Reformed Church in New Westminster, Olivet Church in Abbotsford, Dunbar Heights Baptist Church in Vancouver, Fellowship Baptist Church in White Rock, Chandos Pattison Auditorium in Surrey, Cloverdale Baptist Church in Cloverdale, Sea Island United Church in Richmond, Westminster Bible Chapel in New Westminster, and the University of the Fraser Valley (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019d).
The speakers included Clarence Janzen, David Rives, Vance Nelson, Dr. Andy McIntosh, John Baungardner, Donald Chittick, Dennis Petersen, John Byl, Michael Oard, Mike Riddle, Danny Faulkner, Larry Vardiman, Mike Psarris, Jonathan Sarfati, John Martin, and Kevin Anderson (Ibid.). This is well-organized ignorance in British Columba. Ignorance is not a crime. It can be changed with information rather than misinformation. You will often see phrases or terms including “evolutionist” or “secular [fill in the discipline]” so as to separate the regular training in the sciences from their biblical assertions as alternative theoretical foundations as valid as regular training (Ibid.). Nurre is stated as having training in “secular geology,” by which they mean geology in contradistinction to creation ‘science’ and ‘biblical geology’ or, what is also known as, non-science and theological assertions (Ibid.). One may claim training in physics, chemistry, or biology.
However, if one learns physics and teaches astrology, or if one learns biology and proclaims creationism, or if one learns chemistry and asserts alchemy, then the person did not use the education to educate and instead used the credentials to bolster non-scientific claims. This seems less excusable than mere ignorance or lack of exposure. Indeed, the damage over time to the cultural, including science, health of the nation makes individuals with proper education and credentials much more culpable as panderers to public theological prejudice and lowering the bar on the theological discussions and the scientific literacy of the general public, especially amongst followers who trust in them. In many ways, we all know this, but we permit this in the light of dogma or faith as a means by which to remove true critiques – using the proverbial sledgehammer to render such non-scientific and simplistic beliefs ridiculous and fringe at best.
As one works from first principles, science, and the other works from purported holy texts, creationism, we come to the obvious: creationism amounts to theology with attempts at scientific justifications; therefore, creationism cannot amount to science, only theology with strained attempts at science, e.g. “creation science” becomes “creationism,” “secular science” becomes “science” with the logical iterations following in other cases or terminological rather than content differences (Ibid.). In sum, creation science amounts to creationism or a religious view of the world, not a scientific one. Furthermore, if in the case of a purported or supposed debate, the, rather obvious, conclusion becomes the debate format more as a ‘debate’ if between an evolutionary biologist and a creationist, as one demands, within the framework of the debate format, an equivalence between science and theology, which there is not; chemists would have no obligation to debate alchemists or physicists would hold zero responsibility in standing on shared debate platforms with astrologers if not for the overwhelmingly religious population amongst the more scientifically and technologically advanced industrial economies, including Canada.
Another tactic with the creationist community comes in the form of quote mining, as one can see in Creation Science Association of BC writings with quotations from Sean B. Carroll, John Sanford, Beth A. Bishop and Charles W. Sanderson, Richard Dawkins, Eugene V. Koonin, Edward J. Larson, Simon Conway Morris, John Chaikowsky, Antony Flew, W. Ford Doolittle, Colin Patterson, Richard Lewontin, A. S. Wilkins, Mark Pagel, Kenneth Miller, Francis Crick, Michael Ruse, Philip S. Skell, Richard Weikart, William Provine, John S. Mattick, Stephen Jay Gould, George Gilder, Stefan Bengtson, Michael J. Disney, Francis Crick, Paul Ehrlich and L. C. Birch, Charles Darwin, George Gilder, Eric J. Lerner, Halton Arp, W. Ford Doolittle, David Raup, C.S. Lewis, David Berlinski, Massimo Pigliucci, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, John H. Evans, David Goldston, Andy Stirling, Lawrence Solomon, Marni Soupcoff, Arnold Aberman, Greg Graffin, Thomas Nagel, Jerry Coyne, Francis S. Collins, Edward J. Young, Henri Blocher, Alan Guth, Peter Harrison, Kenneth R. Millerand, Mark Ridley, S.R. Scadding, Storrs Olson, Mano Singham, Niles Eldredge, Gavin de Beer, Robert Carroll, Roger Lewin, Brian Alters, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Edward O. Wilson, Douglas J. Futuyma, Charles Hodge, Michael Ruse, John Horgan, Robert Root-Bernstein, Richard Lewontin, Jacques Monod, David Hull, and others probably unstated, even “quotes on the Mars rock” (Batten, n.d.a; Hillsdon, n.d.; Wald, n.d.; Peachey, n.d.a; Peachey, n.d.b; Peachey, n.d.c; Peachey, n.d.d; Peachey, n.d.e; Peachey, n.d.f; Peachey, n.d.g; Peachey, n.d.h; Peachey, n.d.i; Peachey, n.d.j; Peachey, n.d.k; Peachey, n.d.l; Peachey, n.d.m; Peachey, n.d.n; Peachey, n.d.o; Peachey, n.d.p; Peachey, n.d.q; Peachey, n.d.r; Peachey, n.d.s; Peachey, n.d.t; Peachey, n.d.u; Peachey, n.d.v; Peachey, n.d.w; Peachey, n.d.x; ; Peachey, n.d.y; Peachey, n.d.z; Peachey, n.d.aa; Peachey, n.d.ab; Peachey, n.d.ac; Peachey, n.d.ad; Peachey, n.d.ae; Peachey, n.d.af; Peachey, n.d.ag; Peachey, n.d.ah; Peachey, n.d.ai; Peachey, n.d.aj; Peachey, n.d.a k; Peachey, n.d.al; Peachey, n.d.am; Peachey, n.d.an; Peachey, n.d.ao; Peachey, n.d.ap; Peachey, n.d.aq; Peachey, n.d.ar; Peachey, n.d.as; Peachey, n.d.at; Peachey, n.d.au; Peachey, n.d.av; Peachey, n.d.aw; Peachey, n.d.ax; Peachey, n.d.ay; Peachey, n.d.az; Peachey, n.d.ba; Peachey, n.d.bb; Peachey, n.d.bc; Peachey, n.d.bd; Peachey, n.d.be; Peachey, 1999; Peachey, 2002; Peachey, 2003a; Peachey, 2003b; Peachey, 2004; Peachey, 2005a; Peachey, 2005; Peachey, 2005c; Peachey, 2005d; Peachey, 2006a; Peachey, 2006b; Peachey, 2006c; Peachey, 2006d; Peachey, 2007a; Peachey, 2007b; Peachey, 2008a; Peachey, 2008b; Peachey, 2008c; Peachey, 2009; Peachey, 2010a; Peachey, 2010b; Peachey, 2010c; Peachey, 2010d; Peachey, 2011a; Peachey, 2011b; Peachey, 2012a; Peachey, 2012b; Peachey, 2012c; Peachey, 2013a; Peachey, 2014a; Peachey; 2014b; Peachey, 2014c; Peachey, 2015a; Peachey, 2015b; Peachey, 2015c; Peachey, 2015a; Peachey, 2009b; Peachey, 2009c; Peachey, 2009d; Peachey, 2009e; Peachey, 2009f; Peachey, 2009g; Peachey, 2009h; Peachey, 2009i; Peachey, 2009j; Peachey, 2009k; Peachey, 2009l; Peachey, 2009m; Peachey, 2009n; Peachey, 2009o).
To creationists in British Columbia – who may be the prime national or Canadian examples of creationist quote mining known to me – and others arguing from quote-mining, and on a broader critique, the reason the vast majority of, secular and religious, scientists do not pay attention nor care about creation ‘science’ or creationism comes from the non-scientific and theological status of it. Religion does not belong in the science classroom any more than alchemy, astrology and horoscopes, spiritism, and the like. Creationism is seen as invalid in the argument in general and unsound overall, not individuals or personalities as people can change and grow, and ideas remain the core issue, but the content and theological positions of creationism as non-science proliferated as ‘science.’ From the view of most Canadians, especially most scientifically literate ones as a rule of thumb rather than an iron law or steel principle, creationism is seen as comically befuddled – bad science and bad theology; a national embarrassment to our standing abroad, and deleterious to the scientific training of the next generations and, subsequently, the scientific and technological – not necessarily moral and ethical – advancement of the country as a whole. Thus, creationism holds the country back now, and in the past.
Individual Canadians reserve the right to freedom to believe in mythologies. However, the children and common good hold right over creationists to acquire proper scientific training and knowledge dissemination rather than religion proposed as scientific, i.e., one can freely waste their educations and lives in pursuit of the inscrutable supposed transcendent as a fundamental human right. The Creation Science Association of Alberta ‘teaches’ the same ignorance in the manner of the other associations, with the President as Dr. Margaret Helder (2019a). As with the other associations around the country, they remain admirably open and transparent in their mission statements and purposes:
Mission Statement
To provide encouragement and resources to persons who desire good scientific information which conforms to the Bible.
Purpose
To collect, organize and distribute information on creation science.
To develop a better public understanding of creation. (Creation Science Association of Alberta, 2019b).
They publish a newsletter, sell literature and DVDs, set forth books and information tables, have speakers, host an annual meeting, and have camps and summer seminars too (Ibid.). They openly state, “An association of Christians from all over Alberta, active in the province for over thirty years” (Ibid.). Also, they not only state Christian only members as “an association of Christians” but also the idea of creation ‘science’ or creationism as teleological or non-science, “Creation scientists have a world view or model for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer exists who created our universe and everything in it” (Creation Science Association of Alberta, 2019c). By the standards of the associations in Canadian society, the demographics seem to converge on one form of creationism with Christian creationism as the source and focus of the ideological and religious, and theological, commitments here.
There is Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. comprised of the leadership of Keith Miller (President), Dennis Kraushaar, Garry A. Miller, Shirley Dahlgren, Calvin Erlendson, Rudi Fast, Sharon Foreman, Don Hamm, Steve Lockert, Dennis Siemens, and Nathan Siemens with the tagline, “Sharing Scriptural and Scientific Evidence for Special Creation and the Creator!” (2019a). They have a number of resources including a prayer calendar, Introductory (High School/Adult) Books, Children’s Books, Christian Ed. (Home & School) Books, Popular (lay) Books, Scientific (lay) Books, Post Secondary Books, Commentaries & Bible Study Books, Apologetic Books, Biographies & History Books, CD & Audio Tapes, DVD, and Video Tapes, and more (Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019a; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019b; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019c; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019d; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019e; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019f; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019g; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019h; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019i; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019j; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019k; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019l; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019m; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019n). Their explicit statements of purpose and worldview in What is C.S.S.I.?, as follows:
Statement of Purpose
1. To collect, organize, and distribute information on Creation.
2. To develop a better public understanding of Creation.
3. To prepare resource material on scientific creation for educational use.
4. To promote inclusion of scientific creation in school curricula.
Creation Model
1. All things came into existence by the Word of God according to the plan and purpose of the Creator.
2. The complex systems observable within the universe demonstrate design by an intelligent Creator.
3. All life comes from life, having been created originally as separate and distinct kinds.
4. The originally created kinds were created with the ability to reproduce and exhibit wide variation within pre-determined genetic boundaries.
5. The geological and fossil record shows evidence of a world wide Flood.
6. Honest scientific investigation neither contradicts nor nullifies the Biblical record of the origin and history of the universe and life. (Ibid.)
They offer a Creation Celebration and a Creation Family CAMP featuring Dr. Randy Guliuzza, Institute for Creation Research (Ibid.) with former years including Calvin Smith (Executive Director, Answers in Genesis-Canada), John Plantz, and Irene Live. They affirm the non-creation of human beings as per the section “Why we exist,” stating:
CSSI was designed to create and distribute information on the creation/evolution origins controversy. Too often the scientific information which argues against evolution is censored and the evidence for design is denied. CSSI promotes, primarily in Saskatchewan, Canada, the creation position by presenting resources covering topics such as theology, Biblical creation, scientific creation, intelligent design, fossils, dinosaurs, radiometric dating, and flood geology, as well as some teaching and home school materials. We also support people involved in creationary activities.
We continue to sell books, DVDs, and audio tapes which support the position that we did NOT evolve but that we were created by God. We handle materials for all ages (children to adults), and various interest levels right up to technical. We also sponsor international, as well as local, creation science speakers and other outreach events. (Ibid.)
As well, they appear to harbour a defunct radio station connected to ICR or the Institute for Creation Research (Science, Scripture, & Salvation, 2019; Institute for Creation Research, 2019). Features or labelled people included James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D., Frank Sherwin, M.A., Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D., Brian Thomas, Ph.D., Jake Hebert, Ph.D., Tim Clarey, Ph.D., Jason Lisle, Ph.D., and Henry M. Morris III, D.Min. (Ibid.). Ultimately, the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019) group considers origins and development a matter of faith. They host six articles: “Was Darwin Wrong? – a critique” by John Armstrong, “The Age of Things” by Rudi Fast, “The Big Bang” by Rudi Fast, “God As Our Creator” by Garry Miller, “When is a Brick a House?” by Garry Miller, and “The Age of the Earth” by Janelle Riess (2004, Armstrong; Fast, n.d.a; Fast, n.d.b; Miller, n.d.a; Miller, n.d.b; Riess, n.d.).
The main hosts of the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019) have been Emmanuel Pentecostal Fellowship in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, and the Echo Lake Bible Camp, near Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan. Their main events are Creation Celebration (North Battleford – March), SHBE Conference (Saskatoon – February), Discerning the Times Bible Conference (Saskatoon – April), the camp (Echo Lake – July), or Christianity on Trial Conference (Regina – October)” (Ibid.). Noting, of course, the last item pitching to the event attendees the sense of siege as if 70% of the country who identify as Christian remain beleaguered in contrast to the other superminorities in the nation, i.e., the rest of the country.
Creation Science of Manitoba is a small, but an active group without an identifiable website at this time. C.A.R.E. Winnipeg has a Creation Museum in downtown Winnipeg. One may safely assume the same principles and religious views as other creationist organizations in Canada. Association de Science Créationniste du Québec devotes itself to the same real attempts at fake science:
Our Mission
CSAQ is a non-denomination and non-profit organization, which objectives are:
-To promote creation teaching;
-To link the Christian Bible with science, education and industry;
-To promote creationist scientific research;
-Encourage every human to establish a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe
About Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec
The Creation Science Association of Quebec (CSAQ) is an organism for all interested in the subject of biblical creation from a scientific and theological perspective. (Canadahelps.Org, 2019)
They have a number of articles in the same vein as the others with proposals or propositions for scientific endeavours (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019a). They have “Videos” with strange content (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019c). The “Press Kit” page remains blank (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019d). Individuals endorsed by them are Laurence Tisdall, M. Sc., Julien Perreault B.Sc., and Jonathan Nicol M.Sc. (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019e).
The places hosting the individuals of the Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec are the Centre Chrétien l’Héritage, Église Génération, Église Fusion, Collège Letendre à Laval, Assemblée Évangélique Pentecôte de St-Honoré, Église Vie Nouvelle, Centre Chrétien l’Héritage, Église Grâce et Vérité, Assemblée Chrétienne Du Nord, Mission Chrétienne Interculturelle, Centre chrétien des Bois-Francs, Assemblée de la Bonne Nouvelle à Montréal, Montée Masson Laval, Université Concordia, Centre Il Est Écrit, l’Église Évangélique d’Aujourd’hui, Théâtre Connexion, Kensington Temple, Église Évangélique Farnham, Église Adventiste Granby, Église Adventiste Sherbrooke, Eglise Evangélique Marseille, IFIM, Eglise Evangélique Aix-en-Provence, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste De Cowansville, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste de la Haute Yamaska, Cave Springs Baptist Church, Grand Forks High School, Okanagan College, Anglican Church, Église Carrefour du Suroît, and Evangel Church (Montreal) (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019f).
Also, Centre Chrétien Viens et Vois, Église Amour et Vie, Hôtel La Saguenéenne, Laval Christian Assembly, Église baptiste évangélique de Trois-Rivières, Centre MCI Youth, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste de St-Hyacinthe, Cégep de Drummondville, Mission Charismatique Internationale, Centre Evangélique de Châteauguay, Best Western Hotel Drummondville Universel, Eglise Evangélique de Labelle, Eglise de Toulouse Minimes, Camp arc en ciel, Eglise Biblique Baptiste du Comminges, Baptiste De Rivière Du Loup, Assemblée du Plein Évangile, Assemblee de la Parole de Dieu, Christian and Mssionary Alliance Noyan, CFRA AM 580, Assemblée du Plein Évangile Lasalle, Assemblée Chrétienne De La Grâce, The River Church (Gouda), Eglise Evangelique Baptiste De l’Espoir, Cégep de Baie-Comeau, Assemblee Chretienne De La Grace Victoriaville, Eglise-Chretienne-de-l-Ouest, Église Amour et Vie de Victoriaville, Église Baptiste Évangélique de Valcourt, Assemblée Évangélique de la Rive-Sud, and Église Carrefour chrétien de l’Estrie (Ibid.).
The Association de Science Créationniste du Québec published a number of articles with different creationist takes on traditional sciences, as theological or fundamentalist religious interpretations or filtrations of the empirics (Tisdall, n.d.; Perreault, n.d.a; Batten, n.d.b; Sarfati, n.d.; Thomas, n.d.; Humphreys, n.d.a; Gibbons, n.d.; Tisdall, n.d.a; Taylor, n.d.a; Wieland, n.d.a; Tisdall, n.d.b; Tisdall, 2003; Perreault, n.d.b; Tshibwabwa, n.d.a; Thomas, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.c; Grigg, n.d.a; Perreault, n.d.d; Wieland, n.d.b; Skell, 2005; Couture, n.d.; Gosselin, 1995; Perreault, n.d.e; Grigg, n.d.b; Bergman, n.d.a; Sarfati, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.f; Bergman, n.d.b; Tshibwabwa, n.d.b; Stewart, n.d.a; Wieland, n.d.c; Tshibwabwa, n.d.c; Perreault, n.d.g; Tshibwabwa, n.d.d; Phillips, n.d.; Perreault, n.d.h; Taylor, n.d.b; Clarey, n.d.; Tshibwabwa, n.d.f; Bergman, n.d.c; Tshibwabwa, n.d.g; Madrigal, 2012; Sarfati, n.d.c; Hartwig, n.d.; Demers, n.d.; McBain, n.d.; n.a., n.d.a; Coppedge, 2017; Perreault, 2009; Perreault, n.d.i; Humphreys, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.j; Stewart, n.d.b; Russel & Taylor, n.d.; Montgomery, n.d.; Humphreys, n.d.c; Taylor, n.d.c; Taylor, n.d.d; Lauzon, n.d.; Snow, n.d.; Tisdall, n.d.c; Hebert, n.d.; Taylor, n.d.e; Tisdall, n.d.d; Morris, n.d.; n.a., n.d.b; Tisdall, n.d.e.). The general orientation fits the other associations throughout the country. Museums throughout the country remain extant. Many small and one travelling museum devoted to creationism.
In the Canadian cultural context, creationism, often, means Christian forms of creationism with an emphasis on the vast majority of the nation identifying as Christian – mostly Roman Catholic Christian or Protestant Christian. We have the Creation Research Museum of Ontario (2019) out of Baptist Goodwood Church in Cornwall, Ontario run by Martin Legermaat with support from John Mackay who is the head of Creation Research (2019). There’s the Big Valley Creation Science Museum. Its curator is described by Bobbin, “Here you will meet Harry Nibourg, the charismatic owner. He used to be an oil field worker operating a gas well out of Sylvan Lake, and is now retired to run his museum full time. In 2017, he was elected to sit on the Big Valley village council. He’s an engaging person, extremely approachable and very keen to share his knowledge on all topics related to Creation Science” (2018). It is located in Big Valley, Alberta.
Creation Truth Ministries (2019a) stands to defend “the authority of the Bible starting in Genesis… enable believers to defend their faith in an increasingly secular age… fill a void in the Christian church that exists concerning this area.” Based out of Red Deer, Alberta, the Creation Truth Ministries travels and functions on this basis providing 3-day seminars, multimedia presentation, Vacation Bible Schools, and Christian camps for kids and children (Ibid.). Its statement of faith:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches…
…The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today (as defined by humans), reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman)…
…Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead…
…Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.(Creation Truth Ministries, 2019b)
The Creation Truth Ministries exists to minister to the public in what the founders and managers consider the truth of the artificer of the universe, in which the Bible represents the foundational truth to the entirety of reality. They have museum exhibits and a virtual tour, a book about dragons, a pot found in coal, and a hammer in cretaceous rock (Creation Truth Ministries, 2019c; Creation Truth Ministries, 2019d; Creation Truth Ministries, 2019f). Likewise, they see the modern period as a secular age and evolution as fundamentally atheistic (Creation Truth Ministries, 2019e).
Further than the Creation Discovery Centre out of Alberta run by Larry Dye (2019), one can find the Creation Truth Ministries (Secrets of Creation Travelling Museum) out of Alberta run by Vance Nelson and associated with the Alberta Home Education Association Convention (2019), and the Museum of Creation out of Manitoba run by John Feakes and Linda Feakes (2019) in the basement of the New Life Sancutary Church and maintains association with the Canadian National Baptist Convention.
Another group is the International Creation Science Special Interest Group (n.d.a) formed by Ian Juby out of Mensa International and due to membership in Mensa Canada with the explicit “intention… to provide a means for the gathering together of intellectuals (specifically members of Mensa) with a common interest in the sciences and philosophies supporting special Creation and refuting Evolutionism” (International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.a). They have an explicit mention of the non-partisan nature of Mensa International on the subject matter (Ibid.). Once more, the communities of creationists in Canada remain open and honest in terms of the beliefs held by them and endorsed by their organizations — all aboveboard in this regard:
The Universe, time, space, earth, and life was created with purpose, Ex Nihilo, by a Creator named by name as Jesus Christ (John 1:1–6), in a literal six days, roughly 6,000 years ago, as documented in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. That there was a catastrophic, global flood (genesis 7:11), which submerged the entire planet and destroyed all life that breathes, except for a scarce few saved on board a very large boat better known as the “Ark” of Noah. That stellar, planetary and biological macroevolution, as scientific theories, are based solely on blind faith and as such, these theories are scientifically invalid.
(International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.c)
Ian Juby, a member of Mensa since 1994, discovered the Mensa International social interest groups and decided to request and create one for creation science through Mensa International (International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.b). The International Creation Science Special Interest Group formed out of this interest with memberships of Dr. G. Charles Jackson who is a lifetime member of Mensa, David Harris who is a member of Mensa, and Steve Edwards who is a member of Mensa, and another unmentioned person comprising the original “fab five” (Ibid.).
They have a few articles, which appeared to end in the latter half of 2005 only a few years after the social interest group began (Juby, 2005aa: Juby, 2005ab; Jackson; 2005a; Jackson, 2005b). Joseph Wilson (2007) reported on the Canadian Christian College and its invitations of Australian creationist Tas Walker, as a note on the invitations to seemingly friendly territory for creationists on Christian university and college campuses throughout Canada to indicate the religious undercurrent of creationism. Some humanists can be found in the most unlikely of people, as in the case of one of the sons of Professor Michael Behe, who founded the idea of irreducible complexity, named Leo Behe (Shaffer, 2011).
He did an interview with Ryan Shaffer for the flagship publication of the American Humanist Association entitled The Humanist (Ibid.). One cannot use Leo Behe as an example of somehow disproof or evidence against intelligent design, but, in a way, provide a window into the nature of belief and non-belief in some religious strictures in youth and the impact of proper science education of the young in terms of an increase in intellectual sophistication about the nature of the world towards a more comprehensive naturalistic framework (Ibid.). One should note Professor Behe, of Intelligent Design, and young earth creationism stand at odds, and in knowing publics, with one another (Lyons, 2008). Answers in Genesis (2019c) describes the splits between the communities of young earth creationists – themselves – and the Intelligent Design movement. Denis O. Lamoureux advocates theistic evolution after time as a young earth creationist (RationalWiki, 2018c; Lamoureux, 2019).
People with similar ideological commitments can band together and then work on common projects in spite of minor differences at times. Indeed, the nature of the variety of creationist movements means the different ways in which the common projects remain the maintenance of theological beliefs – which they have a right to – and the imposition of this in the science classroom as a seeming preventative measure. Not as well-funded or as well-organized, but present, nonetheless.
Institutions of Higher Learning: Higher From What, Learning From Who?
God is by definition the holder of all possible knowledge, it would be impossible for him to have faith in anything. Faith, then, is built upon ignorance and hope.
Steve Allen
And if you have a sacred text that tells you how the world began or what the relationship is between this sky-god and you, it does curtail your curiosity, it cuts off a source of wonder.
Ian McEwan
Justice is never given; it is exacted and the struggle must be continuous for freedom is never a final fact, but a continuing evolving process to higher and higher levels of human, social, economic, political and religious relationship.
Philip Randolph
A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a ‘child of Muslim parents’ will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.
Carolyn Porco
For a thousand years, the Bible was almost the only book people read, if they could read at all. The stories that were officially told and portrayed were Biblical and religious stories. That other fount of Western civilization as we know it today — the Greek classics — went largely unknown until the Renaissance. For our purposes, there’s a noteworthy difference between these two literatures: in the Bible people are hardly ever said to be mad as such, whereas in Greek drama they go off their rockers with alarming frequency. It was the rediscovery of the classics that stimulated the long procession of literary madpeople of the past four hundred years.
Margaret Atwood
The problem with theology and religion in general: it was designed to answer questions via making up stuff that were not yet answerable throughout history by actual understanding of how the world worked.
Religion has been and is a comfort. It has been a means of exercising social control and concentrating power. It contains a lot of guesses about the nature of things that have turned out, as we have learned more, not to be true.
It does not mean that you have to throw out the entire exercise. Because, to some extent, theologizing and building religions. That is practicing philosophy. It is just that philosophy, especially with it is theological, eventually turns out to be disproven…
…Religion is a tool of its era. Each type of religion is a tool of its era to support or provide mental buttressing and societal buttressing for the necessary structures of that society.
But most of religions guesses about the nature of things have been wrong except in the most generous, general terms.
Rick Rosner
Christian universities and colleges throughout Canadian postsecondary education hold a non-trivial number of the possible institutional statuses of the country. Indeed, if one looks at the general dynamics of the funding and the private institutions, most remain Christian and some maintain a sizeable population of students for extended periods of time and continuing growth right into the present. These provide, within the worldview, a possibility to retain and grow one’s faith and develop a relationship with God, and maybe find a boyfriend or girlfriend who seems like husband or wife material. From the point of view of the Christian faithful within the country, one of the main issues comes from the development of a science curriculum influenced by a theology in the midst of a long history of non-science proposed as science. As to the individuals at the universities or the institutions themselves rather than the associations and the external individuals with an active written or speaker presence, or the churches and international networks supportive of them, these, too, can be catalogued for the edification or educational purposes of the interested public about the ways in which theology influences the scientific process within the nation. With some research on the internet and an investigation into the contents of the websites of the university, we can garner glimpses into the ideological commitments to creationism or not within Canadian Christian colleges and universities. If the resources exist off-site or not on the main web domain of the below-stipulated universities and colleges, or institutes, these may have evaded research and investigation. Also, the seminaries have been included in this section too.
Nonetheless, for a first instance, Crandall University, to its credit, did not have search results for creationism (2019). Same with Providence University College & Theological Seminary (2019) and Redeemer University College (2019), and Tyndale University College & Seminary (2019). Ambrose University offers “IND 287 – 1 SCIENCE AND FAITH” described as follows:
This course explores the complex relationship between science and Christian faith, with a particular focus on evolutionary biology. Topics include: models of science-faith interactions; science and religion as ways of knowing; and Christian interpretations of evolution. The bulk of the course will be spent on discussing the four main contemporary Christian perspectives: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution. These perspectives will be placed in their historic and contemporary contexts, and will be compared and contrasted for their theological understandings of Creation, Fall, Flood, image, and human origins. (Ambrose University, 2019)
Burman University (2019) does not harbour it. Canadian Mennonite University (2019) invited Professor Dennis Venema from Trinity Western University as the Scientist in Residence. Venema, at the time, stated, “I’m thrilled to be invited to be the Scientist in Residence at CMU for 2019. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for students, and I am honoured to join a prestigious group of prior participants… I hope that these conversations can help students along the path to embracing both God’s word and God’s world as a source of reliable revelation to us” (Ibid.). Venema defends the view of evolutionary theory within a framework of “evolutionary creationism,” which appears more a terminologically diplomatic stance than evolution via natural selection or the code language within some religious commentary as things like or almost identical to “atheistic evolution” or “atheistic evolutionism” (Venema, 2018b; Apologetics Canada, 2019; The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, 2019; Gauger, 2018). He provides education on the range of religious views on offer with a more enticing one directed at evolution via natural selection (The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, 2016). The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation provides a space for countering some of the young earth geologist and young earth creationist viewpoints, as with the advertisement of the Dr. Jonathan Baker’s lecture (2014), or in pamphlets produced on geological (and other) sciences (2017).
He works in a tough area within a community not necessarily accepting of the evolution via natural selection view of human beings with a preference for special creation, creationism, or intelligent design (Trinity Western University, 2019a). Much of the problems post-genetics as a proper discipline of scientific study and the discovery of evolution via natural selection comes from the evangelical Christian communities’ sub-cultures who insist on a literal and, hence, fundamentalist interpretation or reading of their scriptures or purported holy texts. Another small item of note. Other universities have writers in residence. A Mennonite university hosts a scientist in residence (Ibid.). Science becomes the abnorm rather than the norm. The King’s University contains one reference in the search results within a past conference (2019). However, this may be a reference to “creation” rather than “creationism” as creation and more “creation” speaking to the theological interpretations of genesis without an attempt at an explicit scientific justification of mythology.
By far, the largest number of references to “creationism” came from the largest Christian, and evangelical Christian, university in the country located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada called Trinity Western University, which, given its proximity and student body population compared to the local town, makes Fort Langley – in one framing – and Trinity Western University the heart of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in Canada. Trinity Western University teaches a “SCS 503 – Creationism & Christainity [sic] (Korean)” course and a “SCS 691 – Creationism Field Trip” course (2019b; 2019c). They hosted (2019d) a lecture on Stephen Hawking, science, and creation, as stated:
In light of Steven Hawking’s theories, is there enough reason for theists to believe in the existence of God and the creation of the world?
This lecture will respond to Hawking’s views and reflect on the relationship between science, philosophy and theology.
Speaker: Dr. Yonghua Ge, Director of Mandarin Theology Program at ACTS Seminaries (Ibid.)
They hosted another event on evolution and young earth creationism:
All are welcome to attend, Public Lecture, hosted by TWU’s ‘Science, Faith, and Human Flourishing: Conversations in Community“ Initiative, supported by Fuller Seminary, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences, and the Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, “Evolutionary and Young-Earth Creationism: Two Separate Lectures” (Darrel Falk, “Evolution, Creation and the God Who is Love” and Todd Wood, “The Quest: Understanding God’s Creation in Science and Scripture”) (2019e)
Dirk Büchner, Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University, states an expertise in “Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac (grammar and syntax), Hellenistic Greek (grammar and lexicography), The Septuagint. Of more popular interest: The Bible and Social Justice, and Creationism, Scientism and the Bible: why there should be no conflict between mainstream science and Christian faith” (Trinity Western University, 2019f). Professor Büchner holds an expert status in “creationism” (Ibid.). A non-conflict between mainstream science and the Christian faith would mean the significantly reduced status of the intervention of the divine in the ordinary life of Christians. He remains one locus of creationism in the Trinity Western University environment. Dr. Paul Yang’s biography states, “Paul Yang has over twenty years teaching experience, lecturing on physics and physics education, as well as Christian worldview and creationism. He has served as the director of the Vancouver Institute for Evangelical Wordlview [Sic] as well as the Director of the Christian” (Trinity Western University, 2019g). Yang holds memberships or affiliations with the American Scientific Affiliation (2019), Creation Research Society (2019), and Korea Association of Creation Research (2019). Dr. Alister McGrath and Dr. Michael Shermer had a dialogue moderated by a panel with Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D., Jaime Palmer-Hague, Ph.D., and Myron Penner, Ph.D. in 2017 at Trinity Western University.
All exist as probably Christian front organizations with the pretense as scientific and Christian organizations. One can see the patterns repeat themselves over and over again. Christian ‘science’ amounts to creationism, as noted before. Yang, with more than 20 years, exists as a pillar of creationist teaching, thinking, and researching within Canada and at Trinity Western University. The American Scientific Affiliation (2019) states, “Two things unite the members of the ASA… belief in orthodox Christianity, as defined by the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, which can be read in full here… a commitment to mainstream science, that is, any subject on which there is a clear scientific consensus.” Creation Science in Korea (2019) states, “The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with worldwide membership.” The Korea Association of Creation Research (2019) states, ‘Our vision is to restore ‘biblical creation faith’ and to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations.’
The seminaries across the country harbour differing levels of this, too. Taylor College and Seminary (2019) does not reference it. Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (2019) does not state anything about it. St. Peter’s Seminary (2019) says nothing about it. Master’s College and Seminary (2019) states nothing about it. Toronto School of Theology (2019) talks a lot about “creation” without specific mention of creationism, in which the general framework functions around the origins and not the formal religious view of creationism. St. Mark’s College (2019) does not have reference to creationism. Summit Pacific College (2019) succeeds to not reference it. Centre for Christian Studies (2019) does not talk about it. CAREY Theological College (2019) does not speak of it. Also, Queen’s College Faculty of Theology (2019) did not write about it. Regis College: The Jesuit School of Theology in Canada (2019) did not have any statements about it. Heritage College & Seminary (2019) does not seem to speak to it. St. Philip’s Seminary (2019) appears to have no references to it. Emmanuel College (2019) states nothing about it. Knox College (2019) does not talk to it. Concordia Lutheran Seminary (2019) does not write about it. Acadia Divinity College (2019) does not reference creationism. St. Augustine’s Seminary of Toronto (2019) does not talk about creationism. Wycliffe College (2019; Taylor, 2017) has many references to “creation” with one specific mention by Glen Taylor about creationism. Toronto Baptist Seminary & Bible College (2019) does talk about creationism.[1]
These seminaries, colleges, and universities represent some of the more elite and academic manifestations of creationism within Canadian society. While, at the same time, we can note the lack of a creationist foothold in several, even most, of the institutions of higher learning for the Christians of several denominations throughout Canadian postsecondary. Some other creationists include: Andrew A. Snelling, Carl Wieland, Duane Gish, Frank Lewis Marsh, George McCready Price, Harold W. Clark, Henry M. Morris, John Baumgardner, John C. Sanford, John C. Whitcomb, John D. Morris, John Hartnett, Kurt Wise, Larry Vardiman, Marcus R. Ross, Paul Nelson, Raymond Vahan Damadian, Robert V. Gentry, Russell Humphreys, Thomas G. Barnes, Walt Brown, Paul Gosselin, Julien Perreault, André Eggen, Ph.D., Robert E. Kofahl, Laurence Tisdall and Jason Wiles, Dr. Walt Brown, and Douglas Theobold. Other organizations, facilities, and lawsuits include Answers in Genesis (AIG), Anti-Evolution League of America, Biblical Creation Society (BCS), Caleb Foundation, Creation Ministries International (CMI), Creation Research Society (CRS), Answers in Genesis Ministries International’s Ch ristianAnswers.Net, Geoscience Research Institute, Genesis Park, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Creation-Science Research Center, The Center for Scientific Creation Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Science Movement (CSM), and Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), and Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Hendren v. Campbell (1977), McLean v. Arkansas (1982), Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), and Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990).
Subsumed Autonomy: Motivated True Believers Fighting for the One Correct, Right, Righteous, and True Religion
After a lot of reading, and research, I realized I didn’t have any secret channel picking up secret messages from God or anyone else. That voice in my head was my own.
Greydon Square
The pens sharpen – Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same – Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women’s bodies.
Polly Toynbee
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be — a mystery. Instead of an exciting place.
Bill Nye
It’s like those Christians that say that if there wasn’t a God they’d be out there robbing, raping, and murdering folks. If that’s true, and the only reason they aren’t out committing crimes is because they’re afraid to go to hell, then they aren’t really good people.
Wrath James White
I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
Gene Roddenberry
Religion, by its very nature as an untestable belief in undetectable beings and an unknowable afterlife, disables our reality checks. It ends the conversation. It cuts off inquiry: not only factual inquiry, but moral inquiry. Because God’s law trumps human law, people who think they’re obeying God can easily get cut off from their own moral instincts. And these moral contortions don’t always lie in the realm of theological game-playing. They can have real-world consequences: from genocide to infanticide, from honor killings to abandoned gay children, from burned witches to battered wives to blown-up buildings.
Greta Christina
Apart from the associations, the museums, the universities, the colleges, and the seminaries, another category for open investigation remains the individuals who adhere to a creationist ideology throughout the world, in which the more prominent garner reputations and by doing so respectability and stature, and thus benefits, within the communities of faith. Duly noting, all efforts at isomorphizing scripture and science remain theological at base and, hence, religious in nature, and so appealing to the more sophisticated and literate amongst the populations of the religious.
An important member of the skeptic and writing/blogging community in Canada remains Professor Laurence A. Moran who speaks with authority against numerous faith-based claims and premises of the creationists in Canadian society (Farrell, 2015; Jacobsen, 2017a). America has examples of pressuring by creationists for access to research materials for fundamentally incorrect theories. Andrew Snelling, Christian creationist geologist, wanted to collect rocks from the Grand Canyon National Park (Reilly, 2017; Wartman, 2017). Snelling said, “I am gratified that the Grand Canyon research staff have recognized the quality and integrity of my proposed research project and issued the desired research permits so that I can collect rock samples in the park, perform the planned testing of them, and openly report the results for the benefit of all” (Wartman, 2017).
We need individuals like Moran to prevent the instances of creationism, or to fight on behalf of the public for proper science education and scientifically literate policymaking (CBC News, 2009), as happened with Goodyear under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We can see the continued attempts to “overturn evolution” fail at periodic rates with Professor Michael Behe earning a powerful critique from John Jay College Professor Nathan H. Lents, Washington University Professor S. Joshua Swamidass, and Michigan State Professor Richard E. Lenski (The City University of New York, 2019). The article from CUNY (Ibid.) states:
Lents and his colleagues discredit Behe in elaborate detail, noting that he’s ‘selective’ in his examples and ignores evidence contradicting his theories. Modern evolutionary theory, the authors write, ‘provides a coherent set of processes — mutation, recombination, drift, and selection — that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically and are consistent with the fossil record and comparative genomics.’ In contrast, ‘Behe’s assertion that ‘purposeful design’ comes from an influx of new genetic information cannot be tested through science’…
…Behe is known for the notion of “irreducible complexity.” He argues that “some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective,” according to the Science article. But Lents and his co-authors explain that “irreducible complexity” is refuted by the evolutionary process of exaptation, in which “the loss of one function can lead to gain of another.”
Whales, for example, “lost their ability to walk on land as their front limbs evolved into flippers,” but flippers “proved advantageous in the long run.” Nature’s retooling of a biomolecular structure for a new purpose can lead to “the false impression of irreducible complexity.”
Of course, evolutionary theory has been challenged by non-scientific arguments since Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species in 1859. Darwin Devolves continues this pseudoscientific tradition. (Ibid.)
Rather direct and frank, also overall, we can find the general issue of full arguments and a complete accounting of the evidence rather than selective targeting of some of the evidence as somehow destructive of the entire edifice of evolution via natural selection. The relation between religion and politics must be maintained in the conversations on creationism in Canada because of the intimate relation at present and in the past. Historical precedents exist for the instantiation of religion into the political dialogue because of the open positions of public officials who can set policy or inform the tone of policy in educational contexts as public representatives [Ed. As the next section will explore].
Calgary YouTube personality Paul Ens attempted to attend the homeschooling conference (Michelin, 2018). Unfortunately, he was not permitted to attend the conference while others with sympathetic ties to creationist educational movements earned speaker status. In Manitoba, evolution is included in the grade 12 biology curriculum, and the grade 11 topics in science curriculum. Both classes are optional science electives for high school students. The theory is not included in science curriculums for the grades prior. The province does not make alternative viewpoints on origins a mandatory classroom science topic.
Michelin said, “Helen Beach of the Atheist Society of Calgary, said she was among those who had registered for the Alberta Home Education Association Conference, but was prevented from attending it last weekend by organizers… Dr. Jim Linville, professor of Religious Studies at U of Lethbridge, was also told he wouldn’t be admitted… Ens said he received an email from Alberta Home Education Association president Patty Marler, denying him access to the conference” (Ibid.). Some broadcasting groups, like The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada can engage in discussions on creationism while, weirdly, talking about marijuana and science (2019). On the other hand, some of the most prominent creationists receive invitation to home schooling conventions, e.g., Ken Ham in Alberta to the Red Deer Alberta Home Education Association convention or the “contentious reality TV couple Bob and Michelle Duggar” by the same association (Kaufmann, 2017). CBC Radio (Ibid.) reported, “‘Our government expects all students to learn from the same Alberta curriculum that prepares all students for success,’ Alberta’s education minister David Eggen said in a statement sent to The Current. But Judy Arnall, president of the Alberta Home Education Parents Society, says that’s not actually the case. ‘According to Alberta, homeschoolers have the right to teach their children any curriculum they want,’” including creationism, presumably. The estimated number of home-schooled children in Alberta comes to 11,600 (Kaufmann, 2017), circa 2017.
Nonetheless, individuals behind some of the national and local Canadian problems of the proliferation of pseudoscience come in the form of the founders of groups or who take on replicated monikers of mainstream science popularizers within North American in general, but fit to print for the Canadian sensibilities and culture in some fundamentalist Christian communities. Larry Dye “the Creation Guy” stealing the theme name, and twisting the original, from Bill Nye “the Science Guy” with a defunct main website circa 2018, who founded the Creation Bible Center (CreationWiki, 2018; CreationWiki, 2016). Edgar Nernberg, somewhat known creationist, happened to find a 60,000,000-year-old fossil (Feltman, 2015; Holpuch, 2015; Platt, 2015). His case is among the more ironic (CBC News, 2015).
Other cases of the more sophisticated and newer brands of Christianity with a similar theology, but more evolutionary biology – proper – incorporated into them exist in some of the heart of parts of evangelical Christianity in Canada. Professor Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and his colleague Dave Navarro (Pastor, South Langley Church) continued a conversation on something entitled “evolutionary creation,” not “creation science” or “intelligent design” as Venema’s orientation at Trinity Western University continues to focus on the ways in which the evolutionary science can mix with a more nuanced and informed Christian theological worldview within the Evangelical tradition (Venema & Navarro, 2019; Navarro, 2019). One can doubt the fundamental claim, not in the Bible but, about the Bible as the holy God-breathed or divinely inspired book of the creator of the cosmos, but one can understand the doubt about the base claim about the veracity of the Bible leading to doubt about the contents and claims in the Bible – fundamental and derivative.
For many, and an increasing number in this country, this becomes a non-starter and, therefore, the biblical hermeneutics and textual analysis do not speak to the nature of the world or provide value in a descriptive capacity about the nature of nature, including the evolution to and origin of human beings and other animals. In the conversation, they make a marked distinction between some of the lecture or sermon types. Some for the secular and some for the congregants, by implication (Ibid.). The argument is equipping followers of Jesus, Christians, with hermeneutics and Genesis in a proper understanding can help them keep and maintain the faith (Ibid.). Intriguingly, and astutely, Navarro states, “I had always suspected that we should be reading Genesis as something other than modern Western historiography, but I didn’t know what! But seeing the similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, and Atra-Hasis made it clear that Genesis is an Ancient Near Eastern document, and speaks in Ancient Near Eastern frameworks of reality. It gave me permission to read the text differently” (Ibid.).
Even notions of the Imago Dei, the creation in the image of God may hold little weight to them, whether quoting John 1:1 or Genesis 1:27. John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (The Bible: New International Version, 2019a). Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (The Bible: New International Version, 2019b). Venema, almost alone, presents a bulwark against creationism and intelligent design, as he moved away from intelligent design in the past.
Intelligent design tends to rest on two principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity from Professor Michael Behe and Dr. William Dembski, respectively (Beckwith, 2009; New World Encyclopedia, 2018). Some of the core foundations in literature happened in 1802 with William Paley’s Natural Theology, Michael Denton’s 1985 book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and Philip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial from 1991 (Wieland, n.d.d). Philip Johnson noted Christianity as the foundation of intelligent design in the “Reclaiming America for Christ Conference” in 1999:
I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call “The Wedge,” which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science.
…
In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we’re going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don’t have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we’re the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That’s what America stands for, and that’s something we stand for, and that’s something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let’s recapture that, while we’re recapturing America.
Intelligent design breaks into two streams (McDowell, 2016). Dembski stated one comes from the information-theoretic components (Ibid.). Another comes from the molecular biology parts (Ibid.). The information can be seen in the notion of specified complexity of Dr. William Dembski. The molecular biology can be seen in the irreducible complexity of Professor Michael Behe. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab represents the information-theoretic side while the Biologic Institute and Bio-Complexity, a journal, represent the molecular biology portion. Batemann and Moran-Ellis quote Behe:
By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition non-functional. (2007)
This represents the fundamental idea of irreducible complexity in accordance with the description of the founder of it. The other founded by Dembski in the form of specified complexity or complex specified information describes itself, as a form of information with specificity and complexity rather than specificity & simplicity or generality & complexity. Dembski sees attacks against the intelligent design community from two sides:
By contrast, the opposition to ID in the church is large.
On the one hand, there are the theistic evolutionists, who largely control the CCCU schools (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities), and who want to see ID destroyed in the worst possible way — — as far as they’re concerned, ID is bad science and bad religion.
And then there are the young-earth creationists, who were friendly to ID in the early 2000s, until they realized that ID was not going to serve as a stalking horse for their literalistic interpretation of Genesis. After that, the young-earth community largely turned away from ID, if not overtly, then by essentially downplaying ID in favor of anything that supported a young earth.
The Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky is a case in point. What an embarrassment and waste of money. I’ve recently addressed the fundamentalism that I hold responsible for this sorry state of affairs. (McDowell, 2016)
Professor Behe’s department stands apart from him:
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. (Lehigh University, 2019)
Some of the members of the movement distanced themselves from it. For example, Dembski in a reflection on the state of intelligent design as a movement stated:
As someone no longer active in the field but still to some extent watching from the sidelines, I gave my impressions in the interview about the successes and failures of the ID movement.
The reaction to that interview was understandably mixed (I was trying to be provocative), but it got me thinking that I really am retired from ID. I no longer work in the area. Moreover, the camaraderie I once experienced with colleagues and friends in the movement has largely dwindled.
I’m not talking about any falling out. It’s simply that my life and interests have moved on. It’s as though ID was a season of my life and that season has passed. Earlier this month (September 10, 2016) I therefore resigned my formal associations with the ID community, including my Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years.
The one association I’m keeping is with Bob Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab, but I see the work of that lab as more general than intelligent design, focusing on information-theoretic methods that apply widely and which I intend to apply in other contexts, especially to the theory of money and finance. (Ibid.)
Insofar as I can discern, the Bible represents the theological ground of Intelligent Design; Paley represents the historical father of Intelligent Design; Johnson represents the legal and cultural father of Intelligent Design; Behe represents the molecular biology father of Intelligent Design; and, Dembski represents the information-theoretic and philosophical father of Intelligent Design. All intelligent and educated men of their time, and bound to beliefs of a previous one. A world of more faith, magic, mystery, and male authority. The Director of the Discovery Institute is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the United States; the institute was founded by Bruce Chapman (Discovery Institute, n.d.). Other highly involved individuals include several, as follows:
…microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, geneticist Norman Nevin (emeritus) at Queen’s University of Belfast, mathematician Granville Sewell at the University of Texas, El Paso, and medical geneticist Michael Denton. Research centers for intelligent design include the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, led by Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University; and the Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, formerly a research scientist at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge.(Ibid.)
Intelligent Design does have some conversation in Canadian Christian communities. However, some leave the movement, as with Venema. Looking into some of the dynamics of the ways in which the phraseology exists in some of the conversations or dialogues in Canadian culture, if we look at some almost journal entries in writing to the public about an “evolving faith,” we can see the notion of evolution of a faith as an attenuation or weakening of a religious worldview in some persons of faith, which may be the source of the strong fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of the Christian scriptures by some creationists some of the time (Chiu, 2015). Bearing in mind, the entire edifice rests on a flimsy claim as to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of a collection of books with an emphasis on one book in the collection entitled the Book of Genesis.
As one can see in the above-mentioned statements about William Dembski – “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God” (Environment and Ecology, 2019), the general tenor of the argument becomes the quotes as the argument, the smoking pistols as seen extensively with the Creation Science Association of BC, rather than a point of individual appraisal of the cultural status of a field in the case of Dembski rather than a knockdown against intelligent design or showing the researchers of intelligent design as, ultimately, aiming for or following the “Christian God,” but many do follow it and the original aim in accordance with the statements of one of the founders becomes opening a scientific landscape for a religious worldview. Religion is politics. In this sense, where religion is proposed as personal, the personal became political (again), with the political representative of the all-encompassing for oneself – fair enough – and others – unfair enough.
To one who does not accept the authority of scripture or quotes as evidence for or against the theoretical framework or hypothesis of evolution, a purported holy text and quotes – in or out of context – do not suffice as reasons to accept in the evidence of evolution or not, as the evidence of evolution rests with the experimental and converging evidence from a variety of scientific disciplines. Does a god or gods write or inspire the writings of books? Hundreds exist on offer; one must study the claims about those first, then upon rejecting those prove the inspiration and veracity of this one interpretation of one religion’s texts, and then move about toppling the vast landscape of modern evidence in favour of evolution via natural selection in the proper way.
None of these get done, one can see a repetition in the talking points in several domains, and in the religious doctrines or religious constructions echoed in the halls of the associations, the museums, and the articles of the writers and speakers. Some might proclaim the creationist worldview as a scientific one and not a religious or theological position; however, look once more at the missions and the purposes of the organizations, their foundations come from one interpretation of the Christian faith or religion and, thus, sit upon a bedrock of philosophical creationism, religion, and theology.
One can respect the greater honesty in title than “creation science” found in much of the other spokespeople for the religious movement known as creationism causing socio-political controversy. Another individual in Canada, akin to Dye, as a youth outreach pastor, we can find the Ian Juby website, as a devoted creationist web domain (2019a). There exists a reasonably large compilation of creation videos (Juby, 2019e). Juby is the President of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education, the Director of the Creation Science Museum of Canada, a member of Mensa, and, unfortunately, Mensa International caved or inattentively created the International Creation Science Special Interest Group for Mensans (Juby, 2019c), as discussed briefly earlier on organizations.
An intelligent and educated man with detailed and, unfortunately, counter-scientific views about the world. He sells DVDs including ones on the Book of Genesis and aliens, and one series entitled “The Complete Creation” (Juby, 2019b). He writes a decent amount in something called “Creation Science Notes” or creationist notes (Juby, 2015a; Juby, 2015b; Juby, 2015c; Juby, 2015d; Juby, 2015e; Juby, 2015f; Juby, 2015g; Juby, 2015h; Juby, 2015i; Juby, 2015j; Juby, 2015k; Juby, 2015l; Juby, 2015m; Juby, 2015n; Juby, 2015o; Juby, 2015p; Juby, 2015q; Juby, 2015r; Juby, 2015s; Juby, 2015t). Those went from a highly productive March through April in 2015 and then fizzled into obscurity. Some overlap with the timings of the “Research” page publications (Juby, 2015v; Juby, 2015w; Juby, 2015x; Juby, 2015y; Juby, 2015z). Most of the research publications amount to calls for help, or short calls published as blog posts.
Within the “Media Kit,” he describes in a concise fashion the worldview laid out in the creationism espoused by him; I would use “creation science” if this perspective took on the formal procedures of science and in a correct manner, bit I do not see this playing by the normal or regular rules of modern science nor do the vast majority of secular and religious scientists, including those involved in evolutionary biology – thus creationism fits better or more aptly (Juby, 2019d). Juby states:
The Creation message is a major key to evangelism in the western hemisphere. How can a person be saved, if they’ve been convinced by “science” (falsely so called) that we evolved and there is no God?…
… In fact the gospel message of Jesus Christ is invalidated if Evolution is true. The purpose of this ministry is to expose the fallacies of Evolution and proclaim the truth of both the Bible, and its young-earth Creation message. Jesus Christ and the Apostles were all young-earth Creationists, so it is completely understandable when people (especially teens) have questions about the Bible when confronted by the supposed “overwhelming evidence” of Evolution and an old earth.
The museum is the centerpiece to Ian’s lectures, providing tangible evidence of Creation. During lectures, Ian hands out genuine fossils, fossil casts and replicas, and after the lecture, people can take photographs.
Dinosaurs are in the bible, and in the museum!
Fossils tell the tale of the global flood of Noah
Biology is shown in all its incredible complexity with animatronic displays
Ancient artifacts from deep in the earth show that man has been on earth since the beginning of time
Truly all of Creation declares the glory and character of the Lord! (Ibid.).
Noting, of course, Juby identifies himself as in the work of “Creation ministry,” which seems more appropriately as a descriptor compared to creation science, as “creation science” seems more akin to “creation ‘science’” to me (Ibid.). He does family days, sessions for children, talks on “God’s Little Creation,” uniformitarianism, Noachian flood mythology as historical fact, dinosaurs and humans, evolution, geology and the age of the Earth, as well as a guide tour of the “traveling Creation Museum” (Ibid.). Juby (2015u) covers home projects, which remain uncertain, personally, as to how to enter into a category – corresponding “Past Projects” and “Cool Stuff” webpages remain blank, empty.
Other movement leaders are Calvin Smith who direct the work of Answers in Genesis-Canada (2019b), Dennis Kraushaar as the 1st Vice-President of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. and Nathan Siemens as the 2nd Vice-President of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Roger Oakland and Myrna Okland of Understand the Times, Barbara Miller and Anne-Marie Collins as camp preparers for the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Tina Bain of the Creation Science Association of Alberta, Vance Nelson who writes the Untold Secrets books, and Garry Miller as the camp director for the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Calvin Erlendson of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Dr. Gordon Wilson, Barb Churcher, John MacKay, Dr. Peter Barber at Nipawin Bible College, Laurence Tisdall and Julie Charette at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Shirley Dahlgren, Sandra Cheung at Creation Discovery Science Camp, Warren Smith, Alex Scharf and Velma Scharf, John Feakes, Paul Gosselin at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Sharon Foreman, Bryce Homes, Don Hamm, David Lashley, Dennis Siemens, David Kadylak, Dr. Thomas Sharp, Steve Lockert, Steve Lockert at Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., David Dombrowski and Deborah Dombrowski, Joe Boot, Marilyn Carter, Laurence Tisdall, T. A. McMahon at The Berean Call ministry, Julien Perreault, Calvin Erlendson, John Feak, John Plantz, Robert Gottselig, François Garceau at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Dr. Andy McIntosh, Lise Vaillancourt, Thomas Bailey and Dr. Jim Mason, Doug Wagner, Emilie Brouillet, and Jonathan Nicol (Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., 2019a). Other organizations include Institute for Creation Research (2019), The Emperor Has No Clothes (2019), Creation Safaris (2019), Northwest Creation Network (2019), Creation Ministries International (2019a), Creationism.Com (2019), Creation Resources Trust (2019), Creation-Evolution Headlines (2019), Logos Research Associations (2019), Revolution Against Evolution (2019), Canadian Home Education Resources devoted to creationism (2019), Reasons (2019), and one assumes more – part from repetitions.
As one can see over and over again – if one looks at the References – in the titles of the articles and organizations, there exist mistakes in the titling of the articles and the organizations, which, as an independent journalist and researcher looking at the mainstream and dependent journalists and researchers, should stop or halt as a practice because no ‘debate’ exist between creationism and evolution because evolution does not have a peer in the scientific community, in the community of professional and lay biological scientists, and, thus, cannot exist with a ‘debate’ against creationism except insofar as some mechanisms of evolution via natural selection account for some more or creationism sits at a debate table with reality or, more properly, at odds with reality. (Dubois, 2014). Although, I do not set this at the feet of Dubois, for example, as the Ken Ham and Bill Nye ‘debate’ remains a problem for the overall reportage emerging out of the cultural milieu, Dubois (Ibid.), in spite of the title, provided a good comment, “Creation Ministries International, a spinoff from Answers in Genesis-Australia, has a Canadian branch with a headquarters in Ontario, which is actively involved in outreach across Canada to promote their viewpoints to the public.”
Centre for Inquiry-Canada has covered some of the materials (CFIC, 2013; CFIC, 2014). The Associated Press provided some decent coverage on the Bill Nye and Ken Ham dialogue or presentation time, or ‘debate,’ reflecting the need for better education in the United States, especially in regards to science (2014). However, one may suspect this ‘debate’ became a point of bolstering for the true believers in creationism in Canada while convincing some fence-sitters of the necessity of proper scientific theoretical frameworks as that found in evolutionary theory. An appearance as if an important and real scientific debate can convince some who wish for conversion over time. As Ham (The Associated Press, 2014) stated, “The Bible is the word of God… I admit that’s where I start from.” The “word of God” means literal readings of the Book of Genesis and, in fact, the complete suite of the books of the Bible. Note the underbelly, one can see the in-fighting. Mehta characterizes the conflicts between the flat earthers and the creationists as groups lacking complete self-awareness (Mehta, 2019d). This amounts to one collective of fundamentalists calling another group of fundamentalists not Christian enough or too fundamentalist in their reading of Christian scriptures.
So it goes,
and on, and on,
it goes,
too.
Religion in Politics and Politics in Religion: or, Religion is Politics
God is merciful, but only if you’re a man.
Ophelia Benson
The development of the nation is intimately linked with understanding and application of science and technology by its people.
Vikram Ambalal Sarabhai
‘Respect forreligion‘ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.
Salman Rushdie
Given cognitive vulnerabilities, it would be convenient to have an arrangement whereby reality could tell us off; and that is precisely what science is. Scientific methodology is the arrangement that allows reality to answer us back.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
A great swindle of our time is the assumption that science has made religion obsolete. All science has damaged is the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Jonah and the Whale. Everything else holds up pretty well, particularly lessons about fairness and gentleness. People who find those lessons irrelevant in the twentieth century are simply using science as an excuse for greed and harshness. Science has nothing to do with it, friends.
Kurt Vonnegut
There’ll be no money to keep them from being left behind — way behind. Seniors will pay. They’ll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won’t be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war. Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.
Pete Stark
Some attempt to bring creationist orientations into Canadian textbooks with a focus on the non-difference called “microevolution” and “macroevolution,” which one sees in religious circles and not scientific ones (Coyne, 2015). Microevolution amounts to change within a species and macroevolution to change into a new species, in which the religious creationist (probably a superfluous phrase in the vast majority of cases) denies changes into new species – as this means the creation of new “kinds” or species against God’s dictates – and accept changes within a species as in changes between parent and child but not dog into another species (Ibid.). These considerations, as stated in previous sections, influence politics, including Canadian. We live amidst a age of a rising tide and anti-science acts (Waldmann, 2017).
Torrone (2007), accurately, and more than a decade ago, noted the lack of imagination in much of the creationist works passed onto the next generations in the religious circles – as stated throughout this article about the fundamental religious bases for the creationist movements and, in fact, in accordance with the statements of the founders of the movements. With some examination, a case, at least within Canadian public life, can be made for the mainstay of the creationist movements coming from the religious traditions in this country with a focus on Christianity and some aboriginal traditions; another case may be made with the political life of the country as the conservatives, the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular, tends to produce the most creationist politicians (Canadian Press, 2007). Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory stated as such in 2007 in public statements devoid of scientific legitimacy (Ibid.). Tory, at the time (Ibid.), said, “It’s still called the theory of evolution… They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs,” pointing to the equivocation between theory in science and within the lay public and political leadership. These form a basis alongside religious fundamentalist ideals throughout the country, where the political and the religious become synonymous.
Take, for example, former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, and associates, who represented a similar worldview and voting base often at odds with the science of evolutionary theory. Nikiforuk noted the “covert” evangelicalism of the former prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper (2015). He stated:
Religion explains why Harper appointed a creationist, Gary Goodyear, as science minister in 2009; why the party employs Arthur Hamilton, as its hard-nosed lawyer (he’s an evangelical too and a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance); why Conservative MP Wai Young would defend the government’s highly controversial spying legislation, Bill C-51, by saying it reflects the teachings of Jesus; and why Canada’s new relationship with Israel dominates what’s left of the country’s shredded foreign policy.
It also explains why Harper would abolish the role of science advisor in the federal government only to open an Office of Religious Freedom under the department of Foreign Affairs with an annual $5-million budget. Why? Because millions of suburban white evangelical Christians consider religious freedom a more vital issue than same-sex marriage or climate change.
Of approximately 30 evangelical MPs that followed Harper into power in 2006, most have stepped down for this election. One, James Lunney, even resigned from the party to run as an independent member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Alberni.
Lunney did so as he called critics of creationism “social bigots,” and railed against what he describes as “deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian worldview from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine and academia.”
This points to, once more, the influence of religion and, in particular, evangelical Christianity’s influence on the fundamentals of the faith enforced in the social, economic, political, and science-policy domains of the nation – our dear constitutional monarchy. (Ibid.)
Some creationist politicians may feel cyberbullied (Postmedia News, 2015). Postmedia News reported, “B.C. independent MP James Lunney, who left the Conservative caucus Tuesday so he could speak out freely on his creationist views, was denied the right Wednesday to deliver in full a lengthy speech he had prepared. In a rambling address in the House of Commons, he said ‘millions’ of Canadians are being ‘gagged’ as part of a ‘concerted effort by various interests to undermine freedom of religion’” (Ibid.).
This arose after questioning the theory of evolution (Ibid.). I do not support cyberbullying of anyone for their beliefs, but I do respect humour as a tool in political and social activism as an educational tool against ideas. Lunney said, “I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled” (Ibid.). Thus pointing to the more known point of religion and personal religious beliefs as the problem and not the science, science conflicts with the religious convictions of the Hon. Lunney and others (Ibid.).
As noted earlier, or furthermore, O’Neil (2015) reported Lunney told the House of Commons that millions of Canadians feel gagged by efforts to – from his point of view – “undermine freedom of religion.” Naharnet Newsdesk (2015) stated:
A veteran Conservative MP quit Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government Tuesday in order to freely defend his denial of evolution, claiming there is a concerted Canadian effort to stifle creationists’ views.
MP James Lunney, who was first elected to parliament in 2000, said he will sit in the House of Commons as an independent but will continue to vote with the ruling Tories.
The British Columbia MP said he took the decision to leave the party just six months before a general election in order to “defend my beliefs and the concerns of my faith community.”
He pointed to an alleged plot that reaches into the “senior levels” of Canadian politics seeking “to suppress a Christian world-view,” and criticized the media for provoking a “firestorm of criticism and condemnation.”
A more small-time politician, Dr. Darrell Furgason, ran for public office in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada (Henderson, 2018). Furgason lectured at Trinity Western University and earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Ibid.). Dr. Furgason claims inclusivity for all while ignoring standard protocol in science, i.e., asserting religious views in written work, “Theistic evolution is a wrong view of Genesis, as well as history, and biology. Adam & Eve were real people….who lived in real history….around 6000 years ago” (Ibid.). He believes no Christian extremists exist in Canada (Lehn, 2019).
Mang, back in 2009, described some of the religious influence on the political landscape of Canada. The statements of “God bless Canada” at the ends of Harper’s speeches, the alignment of Roman Catholic Christianity with the conservatives and of the Protestant Christians with the liberals, and the lack of religion or the non-religious affiliated associated with the New Democratic Party or the NDP (Ibid.). Evangelical Christians identify with socially conservative values more often and, therefore, identify with and vote for the conservative candidates in local ridings or in federal elections (Ibid). Even so, the laity and the hierarchs of the Catholic Church can differ on some fundamental moral questions of the modern period for them with the Pope issuing, or popes writing, encyclicals on abortion and contraception for espousal by the religious leaders in the bishops and priests while being rejected by the lay Catholic public (Ibid.).
This may explain the support for the liberals by many of the Catholic voters of Canadian society (Ibid.). One of the dividing issues, according to Mang, came in the form of the same-sex marriage question because of the importance seen in the religious concept of the “sanctity of marriage” with the sanctity intended only or solely for heterosexual couples (Ibid.). Mang (Ibid.) stated, “But times could be changing. Current polls suggest that the Conservatives are in majority territory while Liberal support, once steady and predictable, is dropping precipitously. The Conservatives invoke god when delivering speeches, hire political staff such as the Prime Minister’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Darrel Reid, who denounced abortion and same-sex marriage while president of Focus on the Family in Canada, and pander to myriad religious communities. However, they have attempted to place a veil over a level of religiosity that makes the majority of Canadians squeamish” (Focus on the Family, 2019; Mang, 2009).
Press Progress (2018d) spoke to the far-right rallies of Doug Ford who wanted to “celebrate” the new social conservative agenda for the country. Some point out the direct attempts for a transformation of the society into more socially conservative directions with the work to change policy in that direction (Gagné, 2019). The Christian right with an intent or desire to teach creationism or intelligent design in the schools (Ibid; The Conversation, 2019). A top creationist was invited as a speaker at a convention in Alberta (CBC News, 2017b). In the meantime, Canadians continue with non-sense around purported miracles of white men in modern garb and selling ancient superstitions (Carter, 2016).
Gurpreet Singh (2019) spoke to the urgent need to defeat some of the more egregious cases of science denialism in the political realm. He, immediately, directed attention to ‘skepticism’ on the part of Conservative Party of Canada Leader Andrew Scheer about the Canada Food Guide (Kirkup, 2019; Government of Canada, 2019). Singh (2019) said, “Scheer recently told dairy farmers in Saskatoon that the food guide was ‘ideologically driven by people who have a philosophical perspective and a bias against certain types of healthy food products’… Scheer’s statement clearly shows that he has joined the growing list of right-wing populist leaders of the world who have repeatedly denied science and are bent upon taking the society backwards.” Press Progress (2018a) catalogued Charles McVety stating:
People talk about the world being billions and billions of years old, but I’ve never seen anything more than 6,000 years old. You have a perfect historical record for about 6,000 years and then…stopped…This nonsense that this world has been like this for billions of years is really troublesome to me in my mind because it makes no sense at all, but how many know that the devil makes no sense?…
…I just want people to know, that this man takes a stand, and you know that the devil doesn’t like it. In fact, last week the Toronto Star wrote an article and they ridiculed us for having Ken Ham here to come to speak on Genesis and they said that they’re worried that McVety’s relationship with Doug Ford means that creation is now going to be taught in all the schools in Ontario. I, of course, said there’s no move in that direction but it sounds like a good idea, don’t you think? (Press Progress, 2018a; Canada Christian College, 2018).
None of these statements of frustrations, or behaviours, are new. They harbour a legacy in this country undealt with in the past, which provides the basis for their maintenance through time. Almost two decades ago, Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance Leader in Canadian politics (The Globe and Mail, 2000). As reported, he resented “the probing of his conviction that the Biblical account of how life originated on this planet is a scientifically supported theory capable of being taught alongside evolution. He says the inquiries are intrusive and irrelevant to the election campaign” (Ibid.). Problem: the personal beliefs and convictions “coloured” the proposed policies and policy changes of Day on behalf of the public as a public servant, a politician. He said, “There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution” (Ibid.). The reportage continued:
In a documentary aired Tuesday on CBC-TV’s The National, the head of natural science at Red Deer College in 1997 said he heard Mr. Day tell a crowd that the world is only several thousand years old and that men walked with dinosaurs. While that may be consistent with the literal word of Genesis, it is inconsistent with the evidence uncovered by geologists and others, and subjected to tests and challenges, that Earth is billions of years old and that, The Flintstones notwithstanding, dinosaurs died off tens of millions of years before humans first appeared.
Mr. Day says the documentary denied him a chance to reply. (Ibid.)
Other politicians right into the present continue this tradition in different ways. The work to indoctrinate children with right-wing ideological stances remains against the spirit of education and the stance of the general notion of an informed education rather than a coerced education around creationism and pro-life groups, as in some schools (Press Progress, 2019c).
One can see this in some Cloverdale-Langley candidates in British Columbia associated with the promotion of “blogs purporting to show science supports the idea earth was created in six days. Cloverdale-Langley City’s Tamara Jansen has been in full damage control mode” (Press Progress, 2019a). At the same time, she cast doubt on Darwinian evolution and climate change research published by NASA scientists. Press Progress stated, “…on multiple occasions, Jansen has promoted obscure blogs on the topic of ‘Young Earth Creationism’ — the idea God literally created the Earth in six days only a few thousand years ago. One creationist blog Jansen shared, titled ‘a defence of six-day creation,’ states: ‘Yes, scientific theories do appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was asix-day creation. ‘What is the remedy?’ the blog asks. ‘I will tell you that too. A return to God’s Word! We had science for the sake of science, and got the World War.’ It is entirely true that World War II was, in the deepest sense, a result of widespread acceptance of the doctrine of human evolution” (Press Progress, 2019a; Williamson, 2013; Wieske, 2013). One can find some, but not pervasive, approval of some creationist ideas or modernist paradigms in the creation ministerial works (DeYoung, 2012). In some writing, Mehta commented on and reflected on the need for experts, which seems relevant and important here (2018a).
Gerson (2015) identified a problem for conservative candidates who espouse religious worldviews as scientific hypotheses. In that, belief in young earth creationism may become ammunition utilized by political opposition against the conservative politician who holds religious views on biological origins, who adheres to young earth creationism. At the time, education minister Gordon Dirks was picked by Jim Prentice, former Alberta premier. He was insinuated to adhere to a religious view in rejection of modern scientific evidentiarily substantiated hypotheses or theories found in the biological sciences and important to the medical sciences. She said, “Evolution became a toxic issue for Conservative politicians in the early 2000s. Barney the Dinosaur dolls and whistled renditions of the Flintstones theme song met former federal MP Stockwell Day after he expressed his belief in Young Earth creationism in the early 2000s… In 2009, researchers balked when federal science minister Gary Goodyear declined to say whether he believed in evolution” (Ibid.). This became an issue for Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls who thought positively of the ability of students having the option to opt out of the teaching of evolution (The Canadian Press, 2015). “For myself, I don’t believe in evolution… But that doesn’t mean I speak for everyone else in my caucus. That’s a personal stance,” Nicholls stated (Ibid.). Jim Wilson, Interim PC leader at the time, described Nicholls’s position as unrepresentative of the Ontario Tories (Ibid.). At the time, this was heavily used by liberals against Nicholls. Health Minister Eric Hoskins said, “We had one member of the PC party questioning whether we should even be teaching evolution in schools… I can’t even begin to imagine what may be coming next: perhaps we never landed on the moon.” Religion and politics professor at the University of Calgary, Irving Hexham, explained how if a politician came out in support of evolution via natural selection then the liability becomes exclusion from the religious community (Gerson, 2015). A religious community, one might safely assume, propping said politician up.
Dr. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., the Samuel J. Mikolaski Professor of Religious Studies at Crandall University in Moncton, New Brunswick, stated, “Still, maybe evolution, theistic or otherwise, can explain all these things–as Christian Francis Collins believes just as firmly as atheist Richard Dawkins believes. But we must allow that evolution has not yet done so” (2018). Perhaps, however, the phrase should parse because unguided evolution remains much different than a god-guided evolution in the overall narrative framework. Stackhouse also notes:
Nowadays, however, many people assume that belief in creation (= “creationism”) means a very particular set of beliefs: that the Biblical God created the world in six 24-hour days; that the earth is less than 10,000 years old; and that the planet appears older because a global flood in Noah’s time laid down the deep layers of sediment that evolutionists think took billions of years to accumulate.
These beliefs are not, in fact, traditional Christian beliefs, but a particular, and recent, variety of Christian thought, properly known as “creation science” or “scientific creationism.” Creation science was popularized in a 1923 book called The New Geology by amateur U.S. scientist George McCready Price. A Seventh-Day Adventist, Price learned from Adventism’s founder Ellen G. White that God had revealed to her that Noah’s flood was responsible for the fossil record. (Ibid.).
Further, this means Collins and Dawkins believe in disparate narratives on, at least, one fundamental level. Stackhouse continues to cite the “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould as somehow not quite evolution, but the problem: punctuated equilibrium exists as a theory adjunct to evolutionary biology as a component of evolution in some models. With all due respect to Dr. Stackhouse, he remains flat wrong, or mostly incorrect.
Stackhouse (2018) edges into the conflation of theory with hypothesis, religious narrative guess, or hunch in saying, “The creation science and ID people cannot be dismissed as wrong about everything!—and their opponents would do well to heed their criticisms, even if they hate their alternative theories.” What predictions have been made by young earth creationists to narrow the point? What makes young earth creationism falsifiable as a part of the fundamental proposal? In a strange ongoing well-informed and wrong-headed soliloquy, Stackhouse states, “So what should we do about the vexed questions about origins and evolution?” Nothing, except, maybe, continue with more predictions, more and better tools for more and better science, for improved understandings of origins an evolution via natural selection.
Often, we can find the ways in which the socially conservative views mix with the conservative political orientation, the conservative religious views, and the non-science views on origins and, in particular, development of complex organisms, e.g., mammals and primates including human beings (Press Progress, 2019b). Some social conservatives, mutually, support one another or, probably more properly, protect one another when on the gauntlet over some messaging or statements around creationism and denial/pseudoskepticism of evolution via natural selection, as with Stockwell Day protecting Wai Young (Press Progress, 2015). Day controversial for creationist views in the past, in and of himself (BBC News, 2000). The BBC said, “From an early age Stockwell Day has had strong ties with the Evangelical Church. Between 1978-85 he was assistant Pastor at a church in Alberta” (Ibid.). The evangelical upbringing and traditions seems deeply linked, in many not all regards, to creationist outlooks on the world.
Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls stood by the position from 2015 in which he said, “For myself, I don’t believe in evolution” (Ferguson, 2015). Conservative MPP Christine Elliott disagreed, stating, “I don’t agree with the views that were expressed with respect to evolution” (Ibid.). Helpful to note, during the statements by Nicholls, now infamous, he did not simply state them, but, in fact, shouted them, “…not a bad idea,” which connects, once more, to other conservative political points in the news cycle, e.g., sexual education (Ferguson, 2018; Benzie & Ferguson, 2018). Benzie & Ferguson (2008) stated, “Inside, the morning question period was especially nasty — Education Minister Liz Sandals mocked McNaughton and other right-wing Tories saying they “want to make the teaching of evolution optional.” One may surmise the conflict of the religious-political views as at odds with the march of the scientific rationality into the public and the policies and, thus, more and more with what is better known about the real world rather than what was in the past assumed about the ‘real’ world.
Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s United Conservative Party, remains an individual not to shy from attendance at some of these creationist events within the country (Press Progress, 2018b), where Kenney was, in fact, the distinguished guest as the key note speaker at the National Home Education Conference held in Ottawa, Ontario between September 28 and 29 (2019). Homeschooling remains one way in which the proliferation of religious or theological views as science continues. Kenney (Press Progress, 2018b) was seen as the headline speaker for a “conference sponsored by fringe education groups that promote homophobic and anti-scientific teachings… one sponsor helped shape UCP education policy and is now campaigning for the repeal of a law protecting students in gay-straight alliance clubs, another provides students with learning material that denies evolution, claims sea monsters are real and suggests humans traveled to the moon 4,000 years ago.”
Kenney (Press Progress, 2019d) stated an admiration for the tactics of a former KGB operative who became President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This reflects a violent and fundamentalist orientation against the right to protest. This may form some of the general attitudinal orientation of Kenney in the rights of others. One may doubt the symmetry for others in his party, or for him, if protesting in some fashion. Often, the creationist politicians comprise four categories: older, male, white, and conservative. The counter-science reactionaries tend to target women who are not conservative. The Governor General of Canada, Julie Payette, described the problem with faith-based and non-scientific approaches to the world to a group of scientists in the news, which became a media item and a political debacle – not on her part but on the commentators’ parts. Foster (2017) in the ongoing game of missing the point used the Payette news cycle to make a point against another woman who is the Canadian Environment and Climate Minister, Catherine McKenna.
Efforts to point out sympathizing, knowingly or unwittingly (ignorantly because unaware of the implications of what one says), may, in fact, bolster the support for the candidate with such musings (Dimatteo, 2018), creationism in education and politics seems like an open secret. The British Columbia Humanist Association, described the rather blatant, overt, and without shame presentation of creationism in the schools at the high school level as if science (Bushfield, 2018). Science is not despised by religion or politics in general. Indeed, there can be affirmations of some fundamental scientific findings, including human-induced climate change (Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, 2019) by religious orthodoxies in Canada’s religious belief landscape. Creationism, climate change denial, and Intelligent Design maintain a similar rejection of the facts before us. As you know well by now, Intelligent Design adheres to non-naturalistic mechanisms, or guided processes, for the features of some creatures or organisms alive now (Smith, 2017).
CBC News (2018) stated Payette “learned” from the earlier statements based on reporting of the event after the fact with the nature of the problem coming into the fore with the position, as the Hon. Payette noted adaptation to the position, i.e., do not change on the scientific positions but remain chary of the soft spots of a largely religious public. Payette (Bissett, 2017) even affirmed some standard Canadian values, “Our values are tolerance and determination, and freedom of religion, freedom to act, opportunities, equality of opportunities amongst everyone and for all.” The purportedly egregious statements of Payette on matters of scientific import to the cultural health of the nation. Let’s see:
Payette targeted evolution, climate change, horoscopes, and alternative medicine in the speech. Some quotes, on climate change from human activity:
Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period?
On evolution by natural selection, unguided:
And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.
On alternative medicines:
And so many people — I’m sure you know many of them — still believe, want to believe, that maybe taking a sugar pill will cure cancer, if you will it!
On horoscopes:
And every single one of the people here’s personalities can be determined by looking at planets coming in front of invented constellations.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supported the remarks by Payette.
(Jacobsen, 2017c)
From a standard scientific point of view, she did not state anything incorrect, and several within the community of the general public – leaders and laity – conflated criticism of non-science masquerading as science as somehow an assault on faith-based systems of belief found in traditionalist religions (Rabson, 2018). These, purely and simply, do not mean the same thing and the conflation by the media, or the catering to this by the media personalities and outlets, reflects a significant problem and, in turn, stoked fires not needing further enflaming, as the veneer of congeniality and sociability amongst the laity and leadership of religious communities with one another and the freethought communities seems thin to me. Duly note, the most prominent religious denomination at present and since the founding of Canadian society: Roman Catholic Christian. Both Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau identify as Roman Catholic Christians of more conservative and more liberal strains of the same undergirding theological assumption-structure. For the purposes of this commentary on the article of Urback (2017), the nature of the problem comes from the lack of scientific literacy in the public and non-derision but pointing out the discrepancies in the factual state of the world, as per a trained scientist and former astronaut Governor General, and the sensitivities of the public to counters to faith-claims, apolitical scientific statements. In fact, the Governor General may have experienced the reality of the phrase by Mark Twain, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” As Carl Meyer (2017) observes, Payette was in the service of the general public with telling – to the sensitivities of the general public – uncomfortable truths with myth busting there.
“Rideau Hall is, furthermore, a hidebound place that puts a premium on tradition. Ms. Payette’s scientific background valorizes reason and new frontiers, rather than the way things have been done in the past. It could be said that this personality mismatch speaks well of Ms. Payette – that she’s too smart and independent for such a fusty post,” the Globe and Mail reported (2018). Both CBC News and Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan in 2017(a) missed the point entirely on the nature of the problem with the inclusion of “religion” as a statement, which remains wrong then, and now, and amounts to imputed motive, as the Governor General Payette focused on factually wrong beliefs: climate change from human activity, evolution by natural selection, unguided, alternative medicines, and horoscopes. All parties who misrepresented the comments – news stations, public officials, and individuals – of the Hon. Julie Payette should issue a public apology or writer a letter of apology to her. In fact, they should appreciate and thank her. She set a tone of scientific literacy and individual, educated integrity with the spirit and content of the statements unseen in this country, often.
Besides, Payette noted the turbulence within Rideau Hall as, more or less, supposed or purported turbulence (Marquis, 2018). The Globe and Mail (2018) noted the statements by Payette as mocking creationism, and not creationists – an important distinction. For some who want to bring a nation back to the Bible like those at www.backtothebible.com consider critiques of bad hypotheses and affirmation of scientific theories as an attack on their religion, a giveaway as to name of the sincere game: the creationist view – and other faith-based and supernatural views – as a religious proposition without merit. John Neufeld, a Bible Teacher at Back to the Bible Canada, stated, “At a recent speech to scientists at an Ottawa convention, Ms. Payette was very clear about how she felt about religion… Much has already been said about Ms. Payette’s insensitivity to people of religious persuasion. Some have called her ‘mean-spirited’… As one Christian living in Canada, I say, “Shame on you” (2017). Again, he never said, “She’s empirically wrong,” because this would force commitment to a scientific, repeatably testable, and empirical position. These, purely and simply, do not mean the same thing and the conflation by the media, or the catering to this by the media personalities and outlets, reflects a significant problem and, in turn, stoked fires not needing further enflaming, as the veneer of congeniality and sociability amongst the laity and leadership of religious communities with one another and the freethought communities seems thin to me.
Wood (2017) wrote on the entire fiasco around the Hon. Payette with a rather humorous note about Rex Murphy writing a “hard-to-follow take down” of the speech, which makes one question the strength of the take down or even the assertion of a ‘take down.’ Scientific views do not come from the intersubjective realm of political and social discourses found in norms and mores, but, rather, in the nature of the empirical findings and the preponderance of those findings with the best theoretical framework for knitting the data in a coherent weave. The other theories lack empirical support and, many times, coherence. Thus, every single commentator who took part in the chorus of Canadian journalism here exposed themselves as marginally intellectual in the affairs of central concern to them, in proclaiming faux offense over the Hon. Payette’s statements about basic science. It was never about opinion, but it was about relaying the statements of fact and fundamental scientific theories about the world and the reaction represented the discrepancy of the general public’s knowledge of science and the scientific findings themselves. In these domains, the journalists, as a reflection of some of the public, and several politicians, showed themselves ignorant, or deliberately pandering to sectors of the public who do not prefer women in power, smart and educated individuals in places of influence, or both.
The aforementioned Professor Dennis Venema at Trinity Western University has stated on several occasions and in an articulate manner the theologically inappropriate and scientifically incorrect beliefs inherent in all alternatives to evolutionary theory. He states:
Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case).
For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict. Our genome is nearly identical to the chimpanzee genome, a little less identical to the gorilla genome, a little less identical to the orangutan genome, and so on—and this correspondence is present in ways that are not needed for function (such as the location of shared genetic defects, the order of genes on chromosomes, and on and on). If you’re interested in this research, you might find this (again, somewhat technical) lecture I gave a few years ago helpful. You can also see a less technical, but longer version here where I do my best to explain these lines of evidence to members of my church.(Venema, 2018a)
He sets a new or a more scientific tone in the fundamentalist Evangelical Christian communities and postsecondary institutions within Canadian society and remains active, and young, and can continue to develop a positive theological grounding within a modern scientific purview. In a way, he shows a non-fundamentalist path for the next generations. He and others can provide a context for a more sophisticated political discourse over time.
Creative Stiflement and the Outcomes of Personal Bafflement: or, the Need for Cognitive Closure
I don’t profess any religion; I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words ‘spiritual’ or ‘spirituality.’
Philip Pullman
I think . . . that philosophy has the duty of pointing out the falsity of outworn religious ideas, however estimable they may be as a form of art. We cannot act as if all religion were poetry while the greater part of it still functions in its ancient guise of illicit science and backward morals.
Corliss Lamont
I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam — good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system.
Gore Vidal
Science and religion stand watch over different aspects of all our major flashpoints. May they do so in peace and reinforcement–and not like the men who served as a cannon fodder in World War I, dug into the trenches of a senseless and apparently interminable conflict, while lobbing bullets and canisters of poison gas at a supposed enemy, who, like any soldier, just wanted to get off the battlefield and on with a potentially productive and rewarding life.
Stephen Jay Gould
It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what’s bad and it’s really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term ‘born again.’ That truly describes freethinkers who’ve thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!
Julia Sweeney
They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: ‘If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.’ Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
It may be remarked incidentally that the recognition of the relational character of scientific objects completely eliminates an old metaphysical issue. One of the outstanding problems created by the rise of modern science was due to the fact that scientific definitions and descriptions are framed in terms of which qualities play no part. Qualities were wholly superfluous. As long as the idea persisted (an inheritance from Greek metaphysical science) that the business of knowledge is to penetrate into the inner being of objects, the existence of qualities like colors, sounds, etc., was embarrassing. The usual way of dealing with them is to declare that they are merely subjective, existing only in the consciousness of individual knowers. Given the old idea that the purpose of knowledge (represented at its best in science) is to penetrate into the heart of reality and reveal its “true” nature, the conclusion was a logical one. …The discovery of the nonscientific because of the empirically unverifiable and unnecessary character of absolute space, absolute motion, and absolute time gave the final coup de grâce to the traditional idea that solidity, mass, size, etc., are inherent possessions of ultimate individuals. The revolution in scientific ideas just mentioned is primarily logical. It is due to recognition that the very method of physical science, with its primary standard units of mass, space, and time, is concerned with measurements of relations of change, not with individuals as such.
John Dewey
*Footnotes in accordance with in-text citations of Story.*
Canadian creationism exists, as per several sections before this, within a larger set of concerns and problematic domains, including the international and the regional. By implication, American creationism forms some basis for creationism in Canada. Of the freethought communities’ writers, even amongst religious people – apart from Professor Dennis Venema, few individuals stood out in terms of the production of a comprehensive piece on creationism in Canada. Melissa Story is one exception, and, in a way, amounts to the national expert circa 2013 on this topic based on an honours thesis on creationism in Canada (Jacobsen, 2019t; Jacobsen, 2019u). Full credit to Story’s investigative and academic work for the foundation of this section – much appreciated.
Ken Ham sees Intelligent Design as insufficient to keep the faith of the next generations (2011). We see more creationism than Intelligent Design in Canada. Boutros (2007) gave a reasonable summary on creationism in some of Canada. We can see Creation Ministries International launched their own Deconstructing Darwin in Canada (Creation Ministries International Canada. (2019b). Canseco (2015) notes the decline most strongly in British Columbia of creationism. Mulherin (2014) noted the differences of opinion and belief, and so conclusions, of the different types of theological views known as creationism. Journalist and Philosopher, Malcolm Muggeridge, of the University of Waterloo, stated, “I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has” (GoodReads, 2019). This is Canada.
The British Columbia Humanist Association republished a reasonable piece by Melissa Story in 2013 on the Canadian creationism landscape, of which this section will incorporate as part of the larger analysis of the context of creationism and its (dis-)contents (Story, 2013a; Story, 2013b; Story, 2013c; Story, 2013d). Story (2013a) directs attention to the “Teach the Controversy” battles within Canada and the style of them. They tend to be more local and not national (Ibid.). Story supports religious freedom (Ibid.). Some of the history precludes the recent history. NPR (Adams, 2005) provided a rundown of the history from the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 to the publication of The Descent of Man in 1871, to the publication of George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology in 1914. The ex-Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, was a leader of the anti-evolution movement starting in 1921, who was a former congressman too (Ibid.). Bryan spoke about the Bible’s truth and delivered copies of the speech to the Tennessee legislature in 1924, and on January 21, 1925 Representative Butler introduced legislation banning evolution to the Tennessee House of Representatives entitled the Butler bill (Ibid.).
1925, busy a year as it was, January 27 saw the approval of the Butler bill 71:5 with heated debate for hours on March 13 for approval of the Butler bill (24:6) in the Tennessee Senate with Tennessee Governor Austin Peay signing the Butler bill into law as the first law banning evolution in the United States of American (Ibid.). May 4 saw a Chattanooga newspaper run a piece on the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the Butler law with May 5 had a “group of town leaders in Dayton, Tenn., read the news item about the ACLU’s search. They quickly hatch a plan to bring the case to Dayton, a scheme that they hope will generate publicity and jump-start the town’s economy. They ask 24-year-old science teacher and football coach John Thomas Scopes if he’d be willing to be indicted to bring the case to trial” (Ibid.).
May 12 had William Jennings Bryan agree to participation in the prosecution side of the trial for national interest in the case with Clarence Darrow and Dudley Field Malone taking the opposing side, or representing Scopes, and Scopes got indicted by a grand jury on May 25, where May to July of 1925 saw the preparation for the trials’ anticipated publicity (Ibid.). A touch of naughtiness must have filled the air. The ACLU lawyers represented Scopes with Clarence Darrow as the main defense attorney or the individual who took the rather theatrical stage with Darrow convincing Scopes to admit to the violation of the statute of Tennessee (Adams, 2005). Modern technology, including a movie-newsreel camera platform with radio microphones, telephone wiring, and the telegraph, was equipped to the courthouse to provide a context of proper amplification of the happening to the outside world (Ibid.). July 10 the jury selection begins and Rev. Lemuel M. Cartright opens the proceedings with a prayer based on the request of Judge John Raulston (Ibid.). July 13 the court case opens and July 14 Darrow objected to the use of a prayer to open, but the judge overruled the objection allowing the ministers to continue and not to reference the matters of this case (Ibid.). July 15, Judge Raulston overruled the defense’s motion of the Butler law declared as unconstitutional because “public schools are not maintained as places of worship, but, on the contrary, were designed, instituted, and are maintained for the purpose of mental and moral development and discipline” (Ibid.).
July 17 saw the barring of expert testimony by scientists based on a motion of the prosecutors with Judge Raulston arguing expert opinion will not shed light on the issues of the trial involving evolutionary theory (Ibid.). For July 20 and July 21, “With the proceedings taking place outdoors due to the heat, the defense — in a highly unusual move — calls Bryan to testify as a biblical expert. Clarence Darrow asks Bryan a series of questions about whether the Bible should be interpreted literally. As the questioning continues, Bryan accuses Darrow of making a ‘slur at the Bible,’ while Darrow mocks Bryan for ‘fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes,’”NPR continued, “The final day of the trial opens with Judge Raulston’s ruling that Bryan cannot return to the stand and that his testimony should be expunged from the record. Raulston declares that Bryan’s testimony ‘can shed no light upon any issues that will be pending before the higher courts.’ Darrow then asks the court to bring in the jury and find Scopes guilty — a move that would allow a higher court to consider an appeal. The jury returns its guilty verdict after nine minutes of deliberation. Scopes is fined $100, which both Bryan and the ACLU offer to pay for him. After the verdict is read, John Scopes delivers his only statement of the trial, declaring his intent ‘to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom — that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom’” (Ibid.).
On July 26, William Jennings Bryan dies in Dayton, in his sleep, with a burial in the Arlington National Cemetery on July 31 (Ibid.). In 1926, Mississippi was the second state to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools. On May 31, 1926, the appeal hearing of the Scopes case begins once more (Ibid.). Into the next year, on January 15 of 1927, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Butler law, where this overturned the verdict of the Scopes case based on a technicality (Ibid.). In 1927, the updated version of the textbook, A New Civic Biology, by George William Hunter used by Scopes in the educational context teaches evolution in a more cautious way, more judicious to the fundamentalist sensibilities of the Tennessean establishment of the time in 1927 (Ibid.). Arkansas becomes the third state to enact legislation banning the instruction of evolution in 1928, and then one March 13, 1938 Clarence Darrow dies (Ibid.), aged 80. “Inherit the Wind” base on the Scopes “Monkey” trial opens on Broadway on January 10, 1955 with the 1960 showing the first film version entitled Inherit the Wind (Ibid.), which Scopes saw in Dayton (Ibid.). On May 17, 1967, the Butler Act is repealed (Ibid.).
In 1967, Scopes published Center of the Storm as a memoir of the trial; in 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas struck down the banning of evolution in Arkansas (Ibid.). In 1973, “Tennessee becomes the first state in the United States to pass a law requiring that public schools give equal emphasis to “the Genesis account in the Bible” along with other theories about the origins of man. The bill also requires a disclaimer be used any time evolution is presented or discussed in public schools. It demands evolution be taught as theory and not fact,” NPR stated. 1975 saw the ruling of the equal time demanded and passed as unconstitutional with the defeat by a federal appeals court of the 1973 law (Ibid.). As you may see from the development from the 1920s with the Scopes trial and fallout from it, Story, appropriately, points to the 1920s as an important time for the creationist movement in the legal cases, and for the public school teachers who want to teach the fundamentals of all of life science (American Experience, n.d.).
It came to a head in Dayton, Tennessee with the Scopes trial, where John Scopes became someone willing to be arrested for the teaching of evolution based on a call of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, n.d.b). Scopes was arrested on May 7, 1925 with the purpose to show the ways in which the particular statute or law in Tennessee was unconstitutional (Ibid.). The ACLU stated, “The Scopes trial turned out to be one of the most sensational cases in 20th century America; it riveted public attention and made millions of Americans aware of the ACLU for the first time. Approximately 1000 people and more than 100 newspapers packed the courtroom daily” (Ibid.). William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow were the opposing attorneys in this world-famous case (History.Com Editors, 2019). The legal case was known as The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes and challenged the Butler Act of Tennessee at the time – the ban on the teaching of evolution in the state (Szalay, 2016).
“It would be another four decades before these laws were repealed; however, the trial set in motion an ongoing debate about teaching evolutionary theories alongside Biblically-inspired creation accounts in science classrooms… The early years of legal challenges focused on the constitutionality of imposing religious views in public schools versus the autonomy of parents to provide an education to their children that was compatible with their own worldviews,” Story explained, “The inclusion of creationism in the curriculum was seen by some as a violation of the separation of church and state. Others argued that by not providing equal time to creationist theories, religious students were being taught in an environment that was seemingly hostile to their religious beliefs. Time and time again, higher courts ruled that creationism could not be taught alongside evolution because creationism was dogmatic in nature and essentially brought religion into the public school system” (2013a).[2],[3],[4]
Story emphasized the early development of the arguments against evolution in the public schools with the emphasis on two items. One with the autonomy of parents to raise and educate their children. Another for the constitutionality of the imposition of religious views on the or in the public schools with, often as one can observe, a preference for one particular religious creation story or creationism. Story (2013a) explained the more recent developments in the theorization of the communities of faith with the leadership, often, as white men with doctoral or legal degrees – or two doctoral degrees as in the case of Dr. William Dembski – espousing Intelligent Design or ID, where there is a proposal for “alternative ‘scientific’ theories.” Story (2013a) stated, “Proponents claim that ID is a valid alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution and have lobbied to have it included in science curricula. To date, several higher courts have ruled that ID is nothing more than creationism in the guise of science.”[5],[6]
One of the abovementioned cases from 2005 stemmed from parents who challenged the Pennsylvania Dover Area School District in its amended curriculum of the time proposed for the inclusion of Intelligent Design, which Story (2013a) characterizes as “essentially a secularized version of creationism.”[7]The separation of church and state, Story notes (Ibid.), accounts for the continual return to the American Constitution in the matters of religious orthodoxy, to some, within the educational system and the pushback against the attempted imposition within the science classrooms via the biology curricula. “Canada, however, does not have such finite divisions between church and state entrenched in its laws,” Story said, “While the Charter of Rights does provide protections to citizens, it does not explicitly outline divisions between faith and politics. Despite this, Canadian politics do not seem to be overtly intertwined with religion. On the surface, Canadians seem less preoccupied or concerned about religious influences on government or public institutions. This has meant that any religious controversies, similar to those in the United States, have remained largely unnoticed” (Story, 2013a).[8] Her main warning comes in the recognition of the quiet penetration of Canadian educational institutions with creationist dogmas or religious ideologies pretending to take the place of real science or proper education. (Ibid.).
The main fundamentalist Evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, university, found in Canadian society is Trinity Western University, where Professor Dennis Venema was the prominent individual referenced as the source of progress in the scientific discussions within intellectual and, in particular, formal academic discussions and teaching. Trinity Western University operates near Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada in Langley. The main feature case for Story comes from a city near to Trinity Western University in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Story (2013a) considers this the single most controversial case of creationism in the entire country. The communities here have been characterized the Bible belt of the province, of British Columbia. Story stated, “During the time of this controversy, Abbotsford’s population consisted of a large Mennonite community, many Western European immigrants, and the highest number of Christian conservatives in the province” (Ibid.).
She recounted the 1977 walkout of 300 students in a high school because of the reinstatement of compulsory prayer and scripture readings every day; following this, in 1980, the Abbotsford School Board defied the Supreme Court of Canada ruling “that struck down mandatory daily prayer in public schools” (Ibid.). 15 years later, the library board attempted to ban a newspaper who targeted homosexuals as their main readership.[9] In the late 2000s, the same school board was caught in controversies involving “Social Justice” courses intended for the high school curriculum with some emphasis on community concerns including homophobia or discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals (Ibid.).[10],[11] In 2012, the same school board went under review for the allowance of Gideons International providing Bibles to students, where Story attributes the highly religious nature of the education system to the lack of a formal and consistent challenge (Ibid.). Story uses the terminology and creation science within the context of self-definition by creation scientists. This will become a split in the orientation between Story and this article because the nature of creation science amounts to an appropriation of the term “science” while being a creation ministry, religious worldview, theological proposition, or simply creationist views, i.e., creation science remains a misnomer. The public schools in the 1970s in British Columbia became the first introduction of creationism into the public school school science classes in Canadian society, which points to the Creation Science Association of British Columbia or the Creation Science Association of BC as a possible culprit with a founding in 1967.
“Unlike the Abbotsford case, which received considerable media and government scrutiny, other districts enacting such policies received little attention. Indeed, scant evidence exists that creationism was ever taught in public schools,” Story stated, “The Mission School Board introduced creation-instruction to its classrooms in 1976, but there exists little evidence to support rumours that creation instruction was taking place in other schools throughout British Columbia. Further, the policy enacted by the Mission School Board garnered much less controversy than the Abbotsford case. It is unclear as to why one board’s policy went virtually unnoticed…” (2013b).[12] Some reach national consciousness and numerous remain unnoticed in the entire dialogue of the media. Story (Ibid.) speculated pastors, parents, and “unofficial lobbyists” of the region placed these to the table, even though documents remain lacking here (Ibid.) to further corroborate the supposition. One journalist named Lois Sweet took the time to investigate into the findings through interviews with stakeholders “embroiled in the controversy” who, based on research and acumen, proposed the constituents influenced the decisions of the school board, i.e., the Mennonite and Dutch Reform Church community, and, potentially, the development of the Abbotsford School District Origin of Life policy (Ibid.).[13] Sweet (Ibid.) considered fundamentalist Christian advocates as major players in the 1970s for influencing the development of the school board science program “for more than ten years.”
“In late 1980, an Abbotsford resident, Mr. H. Hiebert, began to a campaign to have more creationist materials available to teaching staff in the district,” Story explained, “Feeling that his requests to the board were not satisfactorily addressed, he approached local news outlets and urged residents to make the lack of creation-instruction a concern during the upcoming election of school board trustees” (Ibid.). At the beginning of the 1980s, in 1981, the national organization, the Creation Science Association of Canada, mentioned much earlier, sent a petition to the Education Minister, Brian Smith, with more than 7,000 signatures as a group of concerned citizens over the purported unequal time for a religious philosophy next to a natural philosophy with the Hon. Smith stating both in the classroom may be valuable for the students (Ibid.).[14],[15],[16]Intriguingly, the comments from the Education Minister did not spark discussion and the comments went into the aether.
Story (2013b) provided part of the contents of the Origin of Life policy with explicit references to the inability of evolutionary theory or “Divine creation” as capable of explaining the origin of life and so as have “the exclusion of the other view will almost certainly antagonize those parents and/or pupils who hold to the alternative view, all teachers, when discussing and/or teaching the origin of life in the classrooms, are requested to expose students, in as objective a manner as possible, to both Divine creation and the evolutionary concepts of life’s origins.”[17] The inclusion of the theological assertions and the proper biological scientific theory because of an implied fear of antagonizing the parents of children. In 1983 a majority vote provided the grounds for refraining from the teaching of the theory of evolution for teachers alone, this meant the enforced teaching of both creationist and evolution via natural selection in Social Studies 7, Biology 11, and Biology 12 (Ibid.).[18],[19]Story (Ibid.) stated the resources for the schools, including textbooks and speakers, came from organizations including the Institute for Creation Research found throughout the country and discussed, or mentioned, in earlier sections, but, interestingly, the teachers avoided the origin of life altogether. In a manner of speaking, this became a weird victory for creationists and a loss for science, as the fundamental theory of life sciences was simply avoided due to religiously-based fundamentalism winning the vote in an educational setting in a fundamentalist and sympathetic part of the country (Ibid.).[20] “Fleeting media attention was directed at the policy and its application. Almost a decade later, Abbotsford was thrust back in the media spotlight,” Story said (Ibid.).
The 1990s continued some of the same creationist trends as those in the 1970s and 1980s in Abbotsford as a flash point case of the influence of so-called creation science or, more properly, creation ministry or creationism with more concerted efforts by Robert Grieve, then-director of the Creation Science Association of Canada, with the distribution of letters to Canadian school boards with requests for the presentation of creationism “creation science associations” (Story, 2013c). Several years later, the Creation Science Association of Canada, as was discovered or found out, has been conducting presentations in Abbotsford schools for “a number of years” (Ibid.).[21]Based on the academic reportage of Story (Ibid.), the 1990s became a period of unprecedented, probably, scrutiny of creationism within the public education system in Abbotsford, presenting a problem to the proper education of the children, especially as regards the aforementioned Origin of Life policy stipulated by Abbotsford (Ibid.). Anita Hagan, British Columbia Minister of Education, in 1992, spoke about the issue “with passive interest,” in spite of the fact that “most of the pieces were resoundingly negative” (Ibid.).
Story (2019c) stated, “…the Minister never formally addressed the Abbotsford School Board regarding the policy. Since no formal intervention was being carried out, a group of teachers and parents aided by a science teacher from outside the district, Scott Goodman began to covertly investigate the policy. This examination led the Abbotsford Teachers’ Association to issue a request to the board to review and rescind the policy. This request was ignored.”[22],[23]The middle of the 1990s, 1995 specifically, became the height of the controversy in Abbotsford over creationism in the schools and its relationship with public policy with the Organization of Advocates in Support of Integrity in Science Education with Scott Goodman and a teachers’ association from the area (Ibid.). They filed an appeal to Art Charbonneau, the Education Minister, where Goodman argued, in an interview at the time, for the importance of secularity of the government, freedom of religion, and the possibility of the attacks of fundamentalist Christianity on the public school curriculum with religious views posed as scientific ones (Ibid.).[24],[25]
John Sutherland, of Trinity Western University, chaired the Abbotsford school board of the time, which, potentially, shows some relationship between the surrounding areas and the school curriculum and creationism axis – as you may recall Trinity Western University sits in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada, next to the city of Abbotsford, British Columbia as an evangelical Christian university (Ibid.). “The Minister agreed with Goodman and the Teachers’ Association and sent a letter requesting assurances from the board that they were adhering to the provincial curriculum…”, Story (Ibid.) explained, “…The Minister’s requests were not directly acknowledged, but Sutherland was vocal about the issue in local media outlets. He accused the Minister of religious prejudice by attempting to remove creationism from the district.”[26]
According to Story, the board did not respond properly to Charbonneau, who then sent a second letter with actionables for the board and recommendations from the Education Minister (Ibid.). One such directive included the amendment of the Origin of Life policy by June 16, 1995 with the cessation of creation science in the educational curricula of the biology classes (Ibid.).[27],[28],[29],[30]The Education Minister of the time stated the efforts of the board were to force the educators to teach religious theory as if scientific theory (Ibid.).[31] Sutherland defended the board; the board mostly shared the position and support of Sutherland, where the theological positions infected the science curriculum posited as scientific ones (Ibid.).[32],[33]“Sutherland countered accusations that the board was attempting to bring theology into science classrooms by suggesting that learning different theories allowed students to hone critical thinking skills, and that only alternative ‘scientific’ theories were presented to students,” Story said, “Sutherland also pointed out that the community supported creation-science instruction” (Ibid.).[34],[35],[36],[37]An interview with Sutherland, at the time,indicated a personal belief in “alternative schemes” in the interpretation of the data presented to students in the biology classroom with the “random, purposeless, evolutionary hypotheses” as only one among other belief systems (Ibid.).[38]
The drafting of the newer Origin of Life policy took place and references to supernatural creation was removed while leaving one loophole for alternative theories (Ibid.). British Columbia Civil Liberties Association representatives lobbied for the disbandment of the policy while the Minister thought the policy needed further clarification, so the board chad to comply with the requests of the Minister (Ibid.). The main arguments focused on the feelings of marginalization of the Christians within the and outside the community while others viewed the media sensationalizing the entire affair with further people supporting the Ministry who thought fundamentalist Christians influenced the region (Ibid.). These were seen as attempts to force Christianity morality, mores, and ideas on the general culture, not simply in the biology classrooms (Ibid.). “With the final version of the new Origin of Life policy in place, the board forwarded it to Charbonneau and also obtained legal counsel to ensure the policy adhered to the School Act,” Story stated, “In July of 1995, Minister Charbonneau formally rejected the new policy stating that it was, ‘vague and open to various meanings’” (Ibid.).[39] The base claim of religious dogma not permitted in the science classroom, as religious dogma amounts to theology or religious orthodoxy – not science.
According to Story’s coverage of the new curriculum and digging into the documents, the teachers are instructed or guided to teach the proper science while respecting the particular religious beliefs of the students.[40] September 14, 1995 saw the drafting of a new Abbotsford School Board Origin of Life policy stating, “Teachers may find that the evolutionary perspectives of modern biology conflict with the personal beliefs of some of their students; therefore, when teaching this topic in the classroom, teachers should explain to students who have misgivings, that science is only one of the ways of learning about life. Other explanations have been put forth besides those of biological science. However, other viewpoints which are not derived from biological science are not part of the Biology 11/12 curriculum. Biology teachers will instruct only in the Ministry of Education curriculum” (Ibid.).[41] Story claims the mid-1990s was the end of the public discussion on creation in the public schools in Canadian society (Ibid.).
In the present day, circa the 2013 publication in July of the research by Story, the provincial and territorial curriculum guidelines frame the origin of life issue as unsettled through the acknowledge of parents and students who may have questions about the theories in science put forth in the educational setting (Story, 2013d). British Columbia has the only ban on creationism as an “explicit policy” (Ibid.), while New Brunswick does provide language in such a manner so as to allow Intelligent Design a possible way into the curricula (Ibid.). In fact, Ontario stipulates cultural sensitivities as an issue, which may connect to the feeling of siege on the part of some Christians in the jurisdiction (Ibid.). Newfoundland and Labrador explicitly leaves room open for the doubt portion, in relation to “Earth origins, life origins, evolution, etc.” with possible judgment along the lines of value judgments, ethical assessments and religious beliefs” (Ibid.).[42],[43]Some carryover between the different portions of the contents appears evident in the documents, as analyze by Story (Ibid), as in a permission of discussion and exploration as if legitimate to entertain religious views as science in a biology classroom.
“For the most part, Canada’s education system seems to relegate evolution to upper year elective biology courses. This means that the vast numbers of public high school students are graduating without ever learning about Darwin’s evolutionary theories,” Story (Ibid.) explained, “Quebec is the only province to mandate elementary school teaching of evolutionary. Perhaps then, the critics are right. Canada appears to draw less divisive lines between creationist and evolution instruction as is the case in the United States.”[44] Story (Ibid.) considers the split between the private schools and the public schools within Canadian society in which the public schools exist in a different cultural milieu than the private school system, especially in a nation bound to a largely religious population with the vast majority as Christian – the religious source of creationism in North America, mostly; this does not even mention the “thousands of homeschooled children unrestricted by standard curricula. Story said, “In 2007, a group of Quebec Mennonites moved their families to a small town in Ontario. They did so because the Quebec Ministry of Education had mandated that their small private school must adhere to the provincial curriculum, which included instruction on Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Ibid.).[45],[46]
A reporter called the private schools private businesses without the necessary certification from the Ontario College of Teachers; in addition, public organizations, e.g., Big Valley Creation Science Museum, opened in the 2000s to compound the issue of proper scientific education in the public and the private schooling systems in the nation followed by the impacts on the general populace as a result (Ibid.).[47],[48]Religious orthodoxy dominant in the culture infused into the homeschooled educational curricula and bolstered by monuments to public ignorance. Creations acquires a platform unseen in other institutions. Story (Ibid.) stated, “The Social Science and Humanities Research Council, the federal body that rejected the proposal, stated that there was not ‘adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design, was correct…’ Thus, creationism seems to be an issue that some government institutions would rather not bring into the public consciousness. The refusal to fund such investigations speaks volumes to this being a hot-button topic best avoided.”[49]
Story’s most important point comes in the cultural analysis of the apathy of Canadians in the face of the creationism issue and the proper teaching of the foundations of biological sciences where students come into the postsecondary learning environment with “either no knowledge or very limited knowledge of Darwin’s theory of evolution” providing an insight into the cultural ignorance grounded in the apathetic stances of the public (Ibid.). We can do better.
Post-Apocalyptic Visions: Admission of Mistakes, But Only Under Pressure and After Community Catastrophes
God doesn’t exist, and even if one is a bloody idiot, one finishes up understanding that.
Michel Houellebecq
Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful.
Martin Amis
I mean I don’t believe: I’m sure there’s no God. I’m sure there’s no afterlife. But don’t call me an atheist. It’s like a losers’ club. When I hear the word atheist, I think of some crummy motel where they’re having a function and these people have nowhere else to go.
John Brockman
Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn’t stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it – he’d come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it. Should he ever write an autobiography, he’d call it The Life and Death of a Male Body.
Philip Roth
The final piece was to present it to the world and to make it useful to the world. That was essential to my healing. I survived all of this. I am lucky. I came out on my own two feet with a sense of who I am and a love, and joy, of life. I want that for everyone on the planet.
If my story can help you work through your story in any way, and make you have a more joyful, fulfilling life, then it was worth every bit of suffering for me, for that to happen. That’s really the healing, ultimately. It is the healing we do for each other when we tell our stories because it helps us feel a lot less alone.
We all have these stories to tell. We have all lived through treacherous moments in our lives, great loss, stupidity, joy, and success. We need to share these stories because we connect with each other. The only way we’re going to get through the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years on this planet is by connecting to each other as human beings.
Not ideologies, not profit motives, not how big our bank accounts are, but just humans-to-humans. When we tell our stories, that instantly happens. So, I am very honored to be a member of the tribe that tells the stories of the humans and to have been able to tell my story.
Kelly Marie Carlin-McCall
Canadian schools, fundamentally, avoid or inadequately teach evolution via natural selection in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools leaving students who proceed to postsecondary education ill-equipped to learn within the biology classes in university, as noted by Douglas Todd (2009).
Fred Edwords, in Dealing With “Scientific” Creationism (n.d.) – a well-informed and well-researched article, stated, “Only with this knowledge can one have some chance of success. One should, in fact, go to great lengths to avoid misrepresenting the creationist position. Paradoxically, one must also go to great lengths to not too easily buy into the creationist definition of the issues. One would do best by seeking to understand accurately what creationists are saying while, at the same time, seeking to learn their hidden motives and agendas.”
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History provides a good explanation of science and religion, and the demarcation between them (2018):
Science is a way to understand nature by developing explanations for the structures, processes and history of nature that can be tested by observations in laboratories or in the field…
Religion, or more appropriately religions, are cultural phenomena comprised of social institutions, traditions of practice, literatures, sacred texts and stories, and sacred places that identify and convey an understanding of ultimate meaning…
Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future… Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning. (Ibid.)
Although, as Wyatt Graham, Executive Director of the Gospel Coalition Canada, stated, “There seems to be widespread agreement that the age of the earth is tertiary or non-central point of doctrine among Christians. The impulse to press the doctrine of YEC in the 1950s-1980s has become gentle hum, with Answers in Genesis being an exception to the rule.” (Graham, 2017). He harbours doubts as to the long-term viability of this view, saying, “It is safe to assume that in Canada YEC will decline in popularity. The cultural and theological pressures of those who hold to YEC will slowly erode YEC proponents’ confidence” (Ibid.). Stoyan Zaimov of the Christian Post spoke to the concerns of the decline of creationist beliefs in some countries in the more developed world and the apathy of some Christians and the rebuking by other Christians (2017).
This seems to imply the, based on the statement of Graham, comprehension or eventual admission – with the eventual decline of young earth creationism – in Canadian Christian communities of their forebears believing patent wrong ideas in a purported inerrant and holy text, as continues to happen over history and leaves one critical as to the viability of supposed origin, development, and assertions of the Bible within generations and generations of sincere biblical believers. Still into the present, young earth creationism and old earth creationism continue abated and debated, e.g. “Drs. Albert Mohler (YEC) and John Collins (Old Age Creationist / OEC)” or between “Tim Challies (YEC) and Justin Taylor (OEC)” (Graham, 2017; Carl F.H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding, 2017).
Edwords notes the foundational claims of creationism in multiple forms:
For convenience, I will quote the definition of “creation-science” appearing in Arkansas Act 590.
Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
Separate ancestry for man and apes;
Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.(n.d.)
As with the British Columbia jurisdictional case of the banning of creationism from the public schools, this has been replicated in other countries including Australia:
The South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board has published a new education policy that states it requires the ”teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.” It then goes on to state that it “does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design.”
However, Stephen O’Doherty, the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, said that he believes the intention of the South Australian policy was to ban the teaching of the biblical perspective on the nature of the universe altogether. It was the only such subject singled out, he said.
O’Doherty said the statement by the South Australian Board was too strident, the Herald reports. “Taken literally,” he said, “it means you cannot mention the Bible in science classes.” (Baklinski, 2010).
However, the poor ideas may continue to persist. One difficulty lies in the conspiratorial mindset behind the belief system. Lewandowsky said, “There is growing evidence that indulging in conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject scientific findings, from climate change to vaccinations and AIDS. And researchers have now found that teleological thinking also links beliefs in conspiracy theories and creationism.” In a sense, the conspiratorial mindset rests on a teleological foundation in which the creationist becomes an extreme and explicit case study or the creationism as a theory of the origins of life and the cosmos. Conspiracy theory mindsets provide creationists (Best, 2018). Mehta (2019e) stated:
The good news: Belief in Young Earth Creationism is nearly as low as it’s ever been, and acceptance of evolution by natural selection is at an all-time high!
The bad news: Belief in Young Earth Creationism is still nearly twice as popular as reality.
Unfortunately, if well financed, and if an invalid epistemological belief-building structure, and if sufficient fervor and zeal, then we come to the problems extant in one nation extending into another country, as in the creationist theme park in Hong Kong (Taete, 2019). The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky remains an – ahem – testament and warning as to the problems inherent in the religious-based conceptualization of the natural world, of the world discovered by science and organized by the theoretical frameworks of scientists (Creation Museum, 2019). They have a life-sized Noah’s Ark and an Eden Zoo. Onward with these problems of education and theology proposed as science, the main concern becomes the proliferation of bad science.
The choice for good science is ours if we work where it counts: education.
[1] The Creation Club [Ed. David Rives Ministries] is an online resource (2016), which lists a large number of creationists for consumption and production of similar materials around the world: David Rives, Sara J. Mikkelson, Cheri Fields, Duane Caldwell, Tom Shipley, Jay Wile, Jay Hall, Vinnie Harned, Dr. Tas Walker, Avery Foley, Bryan Melugin, Karl Priest, Tiffany Denham, Garret Haley, Dr. Jack Burton, Terry Read, Mike Snavely and Carrie Snavely, Caleb LePore, Kate [Loop] Hannon, Russel Grigg, Russ Miller, Dante Duran, Doug Velting, Joseph Mastropaolo, Zachary Bruno, Bob Sorensen, Daniel Currier, Bob Enyart, Steve Schramm, Todd Elder, Dr. Jason Lisle, Walter Sivertsen, Janessa Cooper, Christian Montanez, Peter Schreimer, Todd Wood, Gary Bates, Lindsay Harold, Luke Harned, Wendy MacDonald, Dr. Charles Jackson, Emma Dieterle, Jim Liles, Victoria Bowbottom, Jeff Staddon, Rachel Hamburg, Tim Newton, Dr. Carolyn Reeves, Emory Moynagh, Bill Wise, Richard William Nelson, David Bump, Kally Lyn Horn, Tom Wagner, Mark Finkheimer, Paul Tylor, Jim Brenneman, Benjamin Owen, Steven Martins, Dr. John Hartnett, David Rives, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Mark Opheim, Mark Crouch, Salvador Cordova, Jim Gibson, Dr. Edward Boudreaux, Stephanie Clark, Faith P., Sara H., Donnie Chappell, George Maxwelll, Dr. Jerry Bergman, Jonathan Schulz, Albert DeBenedictis, Steve Hendrickson, Pat Mingarelli, Verle Bell, Bill Kolstad, D.S. Causey, Michael J. Oard, Jillene Bailey, NNathan Hutcherson, Tammara Horn, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geoff Chapman, Philip Bell, Denis Dreves, Len Den Beer, Stella Heart, Joe Taylor, Trooy DeVlieger, Patrick Nurre, Roger Wheelock, David Mikkelson, Douglas Harold, Louie Giglio, Eric Metaxas, and Murry Rives.
[2] See America’s difficulty with Darwin. (2009, February). History Today, 59(2), 22-28.
[3] See Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76-79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811.
[4] See Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[5] See Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch. J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? BioScience, 53(8), 766-771.
[6] See Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76-79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811
[7] See Cameron, A. (2006). An utterly hopeless muddle. The Presbyterian Record,130(5), 18-21..
[8] See Noll, M. A. (1992). A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[9] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[10] See Steffenhagen, J., & Baker, R. (2012, November 8). Humanist wants Abbotsford School District scrutinized for Bible distribution. Abbotsford Times.
[11] See Gay-friendly course halted by Abbotsford school board. (2008, September 21). The Vancouver Sun.
[12] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[13] See Sweet, L. (1997). God in the classroom: The controversial issue of religion in Canada’s schools. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Inc.
[14] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[16] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[18] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[20] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[23] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[24] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[26] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[27] See Todd, D. (1995). Abbotsford teachers want Genesis out of Biology 11 class: Creationism stays, school chair insists. The Vancouver Sun.
[28] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[29] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[30] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[31] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[32] See Byfield, T., & Byfield, V. (1995, November 20). Religious dogma is banned in B.C. science classes to make way for irreligious dogma. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 36.
[33] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[34] See Todd, D. (1995). Abbotsford teachers want Genesis out of Biology 11 class: Creationism stays, school chair insists. The Vancouver Sun.
[35] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[36] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[37] See Sweet, L. (1997). God in the classroom: The controversial issue of religion in Canada’s schools. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Inc.
[39] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[46] See Bergen, R. (2007, September 1). Education laws prompt Mennonites to pack bags; Quebec residents move to Ontario so kids can be taught creationism. Times – Colonist.
Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76–79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811
Armstrong, J. (2004, November). “Was Darwin Wrong?” — A Critique. Retrieved from www. cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/wasdarwinwrong.html.
Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85–108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Bars, S.L. (2011, June 2). In France, a Muslim Offensive Against Evolution. Retrieved from content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075011,00.html.
Bergen, R. (2007, September 1). Education laws prompt Mennonites to pack bags; Quebec residents move to Ontario so kids can be taught creationism. Times — Colonist.
Canadian Mennonite University. (2019). CMU welcomes Dr. Dennis R. Venema as 2019’s Scientist in Residence. Retrieved from https://media.cmu.ca/sir2019.
Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981–1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019f). Événements. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/evenements.
CROP. (2017, February 10). 40% of Canadians believe that life on Earth was created in six days (The ideal prelude to Wagner’s Das Rheingold!). Retrieved from https://www.crop.ca/en/blog/2017/138/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018g, February 16). In Conversation with Joyce Arthur — Founder and Executive Director, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/02/arthur/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017, October 15). Interview with Roslyn Mould: President of the Humanist Association of Ghana; Chair of the African working group (IHEYO). Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/10/roslyn-mould/.
Khan, R. (2019, May 12). The people aren’t always right: Alabama & Creationism. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/the-people-arent-always-right-alabama-creationism/#.XZJ1PEZKiM8.
Khan, R. (2009, February 15). Which religious groups are Creationist?. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/02/which-religious-groups-are-creationist/#.XYu3ekZKiM9.
Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch. J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? BioScience, 53(8), 766–771.
Naharnet Newsdesk. (2015, March 31). Canadian MP Quits Harper Government to Tout Creationism. Retrieved from www.naharnet.com/stories/en/173847.
National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition.: Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/.
PEW Research. (2009, February 4). Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution. Retrieved from ttps://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/.
Plait, P. (2008, July 21). Creationists fail again: taken for granite. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/21/creationists-fail-again-taken-for-granite/#.XZOEo0ZKiM8.
Queen’s College Faculty of Theology. (2019). Nothing Found. Retrieved from queenscollegenl.ca/?s=creationism.
Question Evolution Campaign. (2015, March 6). Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: “Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.”. Retrieved from www.questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/03/johns-hopkins-university-press-reported.html.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2014). BAKER AT TWU: WHAT MEAN THESE STONES?: ADVENTURES IN BLOGGING ABOUT YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/events/event/baker-twu-2014/.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2019, March 6). Falk & Wood at TWU: Evolutionary Creation & Young-Earth Creationism — The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/events/event/van-falk-wood-19-1/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.e). Les fossiles: Témoignage des mondes perdus ou preuves de l’évolution biologique?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/fossiles/.
Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Merritt, British Columbia, of the Diocese of Kamloops had a lawsuit filed against it, in March of this year. The plaintiff attended the church as a child between 1971 and 1973, alleging sexual assault by a priest using authority and trust to “prey” on her.
The lawsuit asserts the diocese failed to protect her as a child. The priest–it is claimed–was insufficiently supervised, while there was neglect to discipline the abusive behaviour or document it.
The plaintiff alleges long-term psychological negative effects such as depression and PTSD resulting from this. These required repeated and ongoing medical treatment and counselling for this individual.
This allegation reflects broader trends within the Catholic Church regarding abuse. February 2025 had a settlement of $3.4 million out of the Catholic Diocese of Prince George with sexual abuse allegations spanning back to the 1990s. Victimized individuals like this person with the large settlement are victims, but should not be confused with a movement defined by victimhood, in sociopolitical culture wars.
We’re dealing with large-scale trends bound to individual narratives with some growing to class-action lawsuits. The centrality of victims in these stories isn’t about victimhood qua victimhood, which doesn’t permit healing based on the research. It’s about individual justice, healing, surviving and thriving.
This story, too, reflects the 2020 narrative of two brothers from Vernon who reached a settlement with the Diocese of Kamloops based on allegations of abuse by a priest when they were boys.
We should be vigilant of false allegations. However, the majority of cases coming forward by a vast margin are real: Both deserve attention and justice, but the vigilance and consideration should be apportioned accordingly.
So it goes.
With files from CityNews, Winnipeg Free Press, Kamloops BC Now, Castanet, and more.
The Former Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledged in a BBC interview the failure to adequately manage the Church of England’s sexual abuse crisis. He considers te scale of the problem “absolutely overwhelming.” Welby resigned in November of 2024.
The resignation followed an independent review criticizing insufficiency of responsiveness of allegations John Smyth. Smyth, a British church volunteer and lawyer, was accused of abusing more than 100 young men and boys over the course of 40+ years.
There was awareness of the abuse by Smyth since 2013. Welby was promoted to Archbishop of Canterbury in 2013. No known appropriate actions were taken between 2013 and November, 2024 to suffice as dealing with this case. Averaging 2-3 cases per year, Smyth likely abused another 22-33 boys and young men in that period of inaction under the knowledgeable leadership of Welby.
Welby said, “The reality is I got it wrong. As Archbishop, there are no excuses”–indeed. Freethought communities use this as an excuse at times to broad brush the churches; laity and denialist clergy claim one cannot blame the Church on this: They’re both wrong. A minority of clergy are at fault.
We should support survivors, embolden clergy to institute reforms, and re-orient secular critique to the clergy who are at fault and work with those want reform while having their freedom of religious belief and practice. This is only hard insofar as we conceive of it as hard.
Independent review showed Smyth continued to abuse in Africa, until his death in 2018. Conservative Christian theology is right here: Evil rarely, if ever, stops itself.
The Michigan Attorney general’s office released a report for an open investigation. It is focusing on the Diocese of Lansing. 56 clergy members including ~53 priests have been accused of sexual abuse since the 1950s.
Investigations into the Michigan Catholic dioceses, ongoing, are looking to detail the allegations and acknowledge victims. These are good steps. Due to statutes of limitations, no charges have been filed.
There over 150 abuse allegations with the most accused clergy already deceased. It is one of seven planned reports on covering each diocese. The investigation has been ongoing since 2018 with extensive document seizures, victim interviews, and a comprehensive effort to address these historical abuses.
A Roman Catholic priest who served parishes in Louisiana and Texas pled guilty to sexual assault charges spanning both state lines and decades of alleged misconduct. Anthony Odiong reflected themes of religious authority, oversight failure, and belated accountability.
Eight women have accused Odiong of sexual assault and coercion. There was unwanted pressure and contact by Odiong reported under the guise of spiritual counselling. It is alleged that he fathered children with the victims.
These match similar cases of a psychological and social power imbalance between clergy and parishioner. These are acute in immigrant and religiously devout communities in which priests hold a reverential status in community.
Court documents revealed that Odiong planned to flee to Nigeria, which can complicate the legal response and raises concerns about accountability and flight risks in cases of clerical abuse. Continental and jurisdictional distinctions complicate clerical abuse cases.
This is a case mirroring numerous others over decades within the Catholic Church coming to light because victims speak out beyond the partitional blockades of the Catholic Church and the laity protecting those in power. There is a long decades-spanning history of institutional inaction by those in power and concealment by the same in the face of credible allegations.
The abuse of spiritual authority matches the recent payouts in Los Angeles to hundreds of survivors. Cases like California’s Assembly Bill 218 are important in reopening the door for older abuse claims. There is momentum in the United States for judicial reform of religious abuse.
It’s clearly not, to the majority of clergy and to the majority of laity, isolated instances in the recent past. These are consistent incidences by a minority of clergy against laity for decades unable to be covered by the highest authorities in the Catholic Church now. Well-meaning clergy should not be intimidated; laity who whistleblow should not be either. We should be in this collective fight against individual clergy who commit crimes. These are moral failings.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles made an enormous settlement of $880 million.
The immense settlement went to the 1,353 victims of clergy sexual abuse. Total payouts have been over $1.5 billion. As far as I can tell, this may be the largest payout for clergy-related sex abuses in history, which says many things: The extent of it, the cost of it, and the potential for a modicum of justice through recognition and financial restitution for survivors.
The settlement was announced on October, 2024, with claims ranging as far back as the 1950s. California law reopened the possibility for older abuse cases. Archbishop José H. Gomez expressed some sorrow, though some hope, that the settlement could provide some healing for victims, which is an apt response.
National Public Radio reported Dan McNevin, who leads the California chapter of SNAP, as saying, “They want to be praised, but I think they should not be praised for being forced to reckon with what amounts to an intentional cover-up. They are settling these cases because they’re afraid to expose these cases to juries.”
This was a lawsuit from decades of bad acts by clergy against laity. In this archdiocese alone, more than 300 priests have been accused. Most accusations tend to be true. The Catholic Church claimed to have implemented safeguards to prevent against future abuse.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to a historic $880 million settlement with 1,353 survivors of clergy sexual abuse, dating back to the 1940s. This marks the largest known Catholic diocese settlement in U.S. history. Combined with a previous payout, the total compensation exceeds $1.5 billion. While the Church expressed hope that the settlement brings healing, survivor advocates criticized it as a result of being forced to confront decades of intentional cover-ups. Over 300 priests in the archdiocese have been accused. The Church claims to have implemented safeguards to prevent future abuse.
The Forbes article by Siladitya Ray noted how the filings happened after California’s Assembly Bill 218 was enacted in 2019. Payouts to victims will be funded using reserves, investments, loans, and other Archdiocesan assets. No allegations relate to priests in current ministry, an important nuance.
Plaintiffs’ counsel note “there is justice in accountability.” Payouts begin 2025 to 2026.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Skeptic Society Magazine
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/18
Gerardo Rivera is an atheist, humanist, and an agronomist. He earned an MS in Plant Biology. Rivera discusses guidance for young Puerto Rican humanists, emphasizing balance in activism and sustainability in life goals.
In an interview with Canadian humanist Scott Jacobsen, Rivera highlights the importance of maintaining personal well-being while pursuing activism, as it helps sustain long-term commitment to causes. He also underscores the role of generational stewardship, encouraging mentorship and financial support to foster younger activists’ growth and exposure to diverse experiences. Rivera reflects on the enriching value of engaging with international humanism perspectives and urges experienced activists to give back by mentoring and supporting upcoming generations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s topic is advice for young Puerto Rican humanists. What should they keep in mind, and what are some important examples?
Gerardo Rivera: Great. My name is Gerardo Rivera, and I am from Puerto Rico. I’m twenty-six years old. We’ll be discussing balance and what young Puerto Rican humanists should consider.
We were talking about how activism goes through phases, much like life. I was sharing advice based on my own experiences. Often, as activists, regardless of our specific field, it’s easy to forget that we’re only as effective as our ability to maintain balance in our lives. Ultimately, if we’re not emotionally and physically well, sustaining the work we care about becomes impossible. Activism relies on us being in a healthy, stable place.
For those passionate about a cause, I advise dedicating as much time as you can—but not at the expense of your well-being. Many people start activism when they’re young, which can become a lifelong journey that’s hard to step away from. Beginning young can sometimes lead to losing track of other important goals, like advancing your career, continuing your education, or achieving economic stability. If you’re not in a good place personally, sustaining your activism long-term will be difficult, if not impossible.
So, it’s essential to recognize your passion and commitment to an important cause. However, it’s equally important to plan for the long term. Ask yourself: How can I build a life that balances my need for happiness and stability with my passion for activism? This kind of planning is crucial.
Remember that activism, politics, and social movements rely on sustainable generational stewardship. Ensure that someone is ready to continue after you because, as humans, we won’t be able to fight the fight forever. Activism isn’t always purely organized; it often involves individual actions. It’s essential to bring others in, help them find their place, and support their growth in activism. Building sustainable organizations or movements is vital because our time here is limited.
If you’re in a position where you’ve had the privilege of being an activist and are now more economically stable but still passionate, take someone under your wing. I’ve had mentors in humanism and activism, including my dear friend Eva, who constantly advises me and is one of my best friends. If you can mentor someone, regardless of their age, it’s a powerful way to support the next generation. I’m doing this in my own life and through academia. For example, I’m setting up scholarships for people who want to study what I studied. This is how we can responsibly support the future of activism.
So that’s one way we can give back. It’s similar to activism—you should try to give back so someone can continue the fight when you no longer can. The rights of future generations will depend on what we can protect today. That’s a lesson I’ve learned recently. My life has changed so much, and it’s become clear, especially with these changes, that life is unpredictable, even if you plan.
Destiny, though I believe in a deterministic view of the world, is very unpredictable. So, the more we can create a network of people who can carry on the fight after us, the better. Even if you cannot donate, find other ways to support. Visit your local college and reignite that club you once belonged to that may no longer be active or has dwindled in numbers. For example, when I was in college, we had alumni—some without children attending—who would come back and ask, “What does the club need? How can we help, whether planning, donating, or volunteering?” They would help us with all kinds of things.
If you’re in a stable position, donate your time, lend a hand, or support groups that may not have the same privileges. That’s one meaningful way we can give back, and that’s all I have to say about it.
Jacobsen: There’s something of a “Taylor Swift era” vibe in life. Not every moment needs to be about being a ‘boss babe’ or a ‘boss boy,’ right?
Rivera: Totally!
Jacobsen: There are times when you’re working hard in Missouri, saving up for a place, and others when you’re in Copenhagen, chatting with a Canadian over coffee.
Rivera: And then there are times like a year and a half ago—before I was in Copenhagen—where I was in the streets of San Juan, Puerto Rico, at midnight, running from the police during a demonstration. Life changes fast.
Jacobsen: I recently returned from Ukraine with Remus Cernea, and this was my second time there. We were there about a month and a half ago, close to a month. Remus and I have been discussing current events.
Rivera: I recently read that North Korea is hinting that it wants to help Russia militarily.
Jacobsen: It’s more than a hint. That’s a whole other topic. From a Canadian vantage, there can be misunderstanding from Americans about Puerto Rico’s status, its people, and its culture. Sometimes, it even leads to stereotypes like the one mentioned by a comedian recently.
I don’t know the comedian’s name. There could be others, almost a benevolent version of the reverse. Puerto Rico’s exotic or something othering. But really, it’s the same principle—it doesn’t humanize people. It’s about presenting a combination of attributes people recognize without really showing a full picture of who someone is.
So, what do you recommend for activists working in a specific context who want to expand their efforts, build alliances, travel, lecture, attend world congresses of humanism, and other such events?
Rivera: That’s a great topic. I’ve had the privilege to do that, and I still do, though not actively because of my phase. But, hopefully, I’ll get back to it in the future.
I’ve had the privilege to experience and compare worldviews and interpretations of humanism that differ from mine. Humanism is, after all, human-centered. And with so many different human experiences worldwide, each affected by political, cultural, environmental, and other influences, there are countless varieties. It would be a lifelong journey to explore every version of humanism. I’ve had the chance to meet people from other countries, understand their challenges, and learn about the solutions they’ve developed. It was incredibly enriching to be exposed to all that.
Thinking about it now, if you have the opportunity to support activists—whether they’re younger or not—by providing financial support so they can meet others, travel, and broaden their experiences, that’s another way to give back. If I hadn’t done all those things, I wouldn’t have gained as much culture from others, and I might never have met you!
Jacobsen: However, I probably reached out by email at some point.
Rivera: But truly, there’s no replacement for direct experience. It was a magical time, and I hope to revisit it once I’m through this phase of my life. So, I would encourage anyone I can in Puerto Rico to become more active. Absolutely.
Alexis Rockman, a up to date American artist born in 1962, discusses his fascination with pure historical past, sparked by early visits to the American Museum of Pure Historical past. He displays on influences like King Kong and Bride of Frankenstein and his views on science communication, AI artwork, and environmental activism. Rockman critiques market-driven journalism, celebrates Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson and shares a skeptical but hopeful outlook on the longer term. With humour and honesty, he explores inventive course of, despair over local weather inaction, and the enduring want for storytelling grounded in scientific and ecological consciousness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So right this moment, we’re right here with Alexis Rockman. Born in 1962, he’s an American modern artist identified for his vivid, typically speculative landscapes that discover the intersection of nature and civilization. Raised in New York Metropolis, his frequent visits to the American Museum of Pure Historical past, the place his mom briefly labored as an assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead’s secretary, ignited his fascination with pure historical past. He studied animation on the Rhode Island Faculty of Design earlier than incomes a BFA from the Faculty of Visible Arts in 1985.
Rockman’s work addresses environmental points reminiscent of local weather change, genetic engineering, and species extinction, with notable exhibitions at establishments just like the Brooklyn Museum and the Smithsonian American Artwork Museum. In 2025, he designed the official Earth Day poster with the theme “Our Planet, Our Future,” emphasizing environmental stewardship and renewable vitality. Thanks very a lot for becoming a member of me right this moment. I respect it.
Rockman: Pleasure.
Jacobsen: So, I did get to go to briefly as a Canadian travelling in the USA on Amtrak, all the best way throughout the USA. I used to be very struck by two issues in D.C.: the landscaping and the Smithsonian Nationwide Museum of Pure Historical past. It was so huge in comparison with any museum I’d ever been to. It goes on perpetually. I couldn’t discover all of it throughout the half day I used to be there. Half day. Sure, I do know. I felt so… touristy. One other factor that struck me about D.C. is that the landscaping and gardening are finished higher than wherever else I noticed in the USA.
Rockman: It’s about public areas and energy.
Jacobsen: Sure, so, have your early experiences on the American Museum of Pure Historical past and your publicity to Margaret Mead had a profound or a minor affect in your inventive path?
Rockman: Which?
Jacobsen: The expertise of going to the American Museum of Pure Historical past and the impacts of Margaret Mead.
Rockman: Margaret Mead—my mom was the assistant to her secretary. So, I do know who Margaret Mead is. She’s an attention-grabbing determine. My mother discovered her abusive, for those who learn between the strains. By some means, she nonetheless beloved anthropology.
Nonetheless, the museum profoundly affected me and shaped my notion and expectations about what nature must be. I’ve finished a good quantity of travelling. I’ve to admit. I typically secretly want that nature appeared extra like a diorama than some disgraced, eroded, or human-induced clear-cut forest—or one thing like that.
Jacobsen: How has King Kong—and is it The Bride of Frankenstein?—influenced you?
Rockman: You probably did your homework developing with these two motion pictures! They’re good examples of unbelievable world-building. King Kong and The Akeley Corridor on the AMNH share a number of cultural DNA and have been made across the identical time within the early 1930’ . They’re each taking a look at nature as a theatrical expertise. Kong is horizontal tabletop miniatures, glass portray with cease movement animation fashions and the dioramas are the identical thought although lifesize with taxidermy with painted cycloramas. So that you’re coping with a extremely constructed stagecraft illustration of nature that could be very expressive and atmospheric. Each owe an enormous debt to artwork historical past and Kong look relies on engravings by the good French illustrator Gustave Doré.
By way of Bride of Frankenstein, that is among the nice witty horror black comedies. Once more, it’s a really stunning manufacturing, very theatrical, and an unbelievable cinematic expertise.. Nice writing. They’ve nice scores from European émigrés, reminiscent of Franz Waxman for Bride of Frankenstein and Max Steiner for King Kong.
Jacobsen: How was your expertise collaborating with Stephen Jay Gould?
Rockman: Nicely, I by no means collaborated with him. I knew him, and browse his books which I like. He wrote about my work, not me personally. He’s one of many science writers I love most on the planet – having the ability to convey so many concepts collectively.. He wrote two essays about my work—one in 1994 and one in 2001, proper earlier than he died.That was a thrill to be taken critically by somebody I admired a lot.
Jacobsen: What are your ideas about E.O. Wilson?
Rockman: Wilson—I like him too. He was an excellent gentleman within the historical past of science and an excellent popularizer. His life’s work was the love of ants, in fact… After I returned from Guyana in 1995, I created a collection of portraits of ants impressed by his analysis. He wrote me an exquisite rejection letter once I requested him to put in writing one thing for a e-book I used to be doing! By some means, a few years later, I ended up on the duvet of one in every of his books.
Jacobsen: What analysis in science has fascinated you probably the most and led to a murals you’re most happy with?
Rockman: I don’t assume there’s only one. There are such a lot of issues in regards to the historical past of science that I’m fascinated by, and it’s an ongoing factor. I’ve labored very intently with scientists on sure tasks.. To be clear, I do tasks which have units of guidelines and I’ve ignored science on others—for instance once I labored on the film Lifetime of Pi, it had nothing to do with science. It was purely about world-building and fantasy. I identified to Ang Lee that there would by no means be meerkats on an island in the midst of the ocean as a result of they reside within the desert. And he stated, “Nicely, it is a fantasy,” and I rapidly realized he was proper.
Jacobsen: If you work with scientists, what have you ever observed about how they take a look at issues? What’s fascinating to their eye after they’re inspecting one thing?
Rockman: They’re storytellers. They’re telling the story of not solely the historical past of life on this planet but additionally the historical past of geology—how outdated the planet is and what occurred on Earth. So, to me, it’s one other unbelievable useful resource. Scientists, as individuals, will be very totally different—some are flamboyant and extroverted; others, like my mother—she’s an archaeologist and a scientist—are extra reserved.
Jacobsen: In your travels, what locations have you ever discovered probably the most thrilling to probe for tales, inventive inspiration, and so forth?
Rockman: All these questions on “what’s probably the most”—the quantified—it doesn’t work like that. As a result of, for me, going to a dump across the nook from right here in CT is thrilling. Going to Antarctica is fascinating. There are attention-grabbing issues in every single place—even in a gutter within the metropolis. I like going to locations. I wish to go to Borneo. I’ve by no means been there. However I’m very democratic on the subject of fascinated by this stuff.
Jacobsen: Relating to a rubbish dump across the nook. What elements of it will enchantment to you artistically?
Rockman: What’s making a dwelling there? What animals am I going to see? If it’s the precise season, you’ll see turkey vultures as a result of they migrate. What varieties of vegetation can survive? The place are they from? Are they native or invasive? That form of factor.
Jacobsen: If you look at fantasy worlds the place persons are creating entire worlds—” world-building,” as you known as it—do you discover a desire for your self? Are they constructed totally from scratch, or are they constructed utilizing elements of the actual world? Utilizing information about actual organisms and their migratory patterns, life, or physics—or ones extra totally concocted from the creativeness?
Rockman: Something that’s attention-grabbing. There aren’t any guidelines with these things however I’m fascinated with visions that I haven’t seen earlier than. After I noticed Star Wars once I was 15, I knew about Jodorowsky’s unmade manufacturing of Dune. Alien hadn’t been made but. I knew Star Wars was by-product to some extent—of 2001 and different issues like that—however I believed it was a recent tackle that stuff, even at 15. These movies have one factor in common- an enormous quantity of planning and the usage of artists to articulate the filmmakers imaginative and prescient.
I discover the brand new Dune film—the one by Denis Villeneuve—unbearably tedious and derivative- it’s too brown, and I’ve seen all of it earlier than. Blade Runner is the benchmark of unbelievable visionary work by Syd Mead. Ridley Scott is aware of tips on how to flip to artists and was so sensible to convey him on. He was sensible at understanding who might assist him present a singular model of the longer term, even in 1980 when the film was beginning manufacturing. We nonetheless exist in its shadow.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the Earth Day theme “Our Energy, Our Planet”?
Rockman: It’s hopeful. I sympathize with it.
Jacobsen: How do you assume Individuals are doing relating to sustainable growth, engaged on local weather objectives, and so forth?
Rockman: Earlier than the final election, issues have been in deep trouble that appeared insurmountable from my perspective. And now, it’s a catastrophe and a world embarrassment.
Jacobsen: Any phrases on your brothers and sisters within the chilly North?
Rockman: What Trump is saying and doing is appalling and shameful.
Jacobsen: Folks typically reference Carl Sagan’s writing—most likely not even a full web page, possibly half a web page of 1 e-book—the place he imagines a future America in his youngsters’s or grandchildren’s time, which is now. He warns of a society with immense scientific and technological prowess however a public with out the capability to make efficient, knowledgeable choices relating to know-how and science. Do you might have ideas on the prescience of that?
Rockman: It jogs my memory of that nice E.O. Wilson quote: “Now we have Paleolithic feelings, medieval establishments, and god-like know-how.” It’s a fucking catastrophe. Let’s face it. He was proper. And he’s one in every of my heroes. It’s a nasty second throughout. And certain, I choose on America, however the remainder of the people are universally idiotic. Are you in Canada now?
Jacobsen: Sure, and I’m Canadian.
Rockman: I bought that. You may nonetheless be in Jersey, for all I do know.
Jacobsen: Joysy? I nearly was in Joysy. I bought again a day and a half in the past, not even. I’m in a small city on the outskirts of the Decrease Mainland in British Columbia.
Rockman: I’ll communicate in Tacoma in a few weeks at The Museum of Glass.
Jacobsen: What are you going to be speaking about?
Rockman: Evolution, my first huge panorama portray I made in 1992. Wow. That’s a very long time.
Jacobsen: To not the Earth.
Rockman: Sure.
Jacobsen: I simply returned from 13 days in New York, the place I attended occasions surrounding the 69th session of the Fee on the Standing of Ladies (CSW69), held in 2025. The go to additionally marked the thirtieth anniversary of the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Motion and the twenty fifth anniversary of United Nations Safety Council Decision 1325 on Ladies, Peace, and Safety. It was additionally Nigerian Ladies’s Day—an enormous occasion. That was enjoyable. So sure, New York was very enjoyable.
Rockman: Good.
Jacobsen: Now, you’ve expressed skepticism in regards to the effectiveness of artwork as a software for activism. What’s with the skepticism?
Rockman: Present me some activist artwork or activism that’s labored, and I’ll change my thoughts. Might you present me? That’s being well mannered—”skepticism” for you Canadians.
Jacobsen: Unabashed disdain?
Rockman: No, it’s not disdain. It’s extra… it’s bleak. You’re not getting the vibe. That is despair. This isn’t some try and be above all of it. I attempted. I’ve been doing this for a very long time. I’ve seen the arc of this story. I do know the place we’re headed. The election is simply an exclamation level on these things. I blame myself as a lot as anybody else. I didn’t—couldn’t—do something about it.
Jacobsen: When you might have public commentary in opposition to scientific truisms—not to mention the extra nuanced truths science discovers—in American discourse, politically and socially, do you notice any colleagues who… I don’t wish to say “promote out,” however…
Rockman: …extra like with Bobby Kennedy?
Jacobsen: Positive.
Rockman: Sure. He was a good friend of ours… So don’t chortle. I noticed the arc of that.He wrote the preface for an exhibition catalogue for Manifest Future in 2004, a mission of mine on the Brooklyn Museum about what Local weather Change is going to do to NYC. I even did a poster for Riverkeeper in 1999. He and Cheryl have been to our home. So, I hope he’s promoting out as a result of if he believes what he’s speaking about, he’s misplaced his rattling thoughts. He was a hero to many individuals. Articulate. Charismatic. Believed in the precise issues. That they had been a champion of all of the issues we cared about. It’s a shame.
Jacobsen: Have you ever seen this occur to a couple of particular person?
Rockman: I’m unsure I can consider somebody off the highest of my head, however don’t—don’t get me going. In fact, it’s occurring to extra individuals.
Jacobsen: I bear in mind Noam Chomsky being interviewed as soon as in somebody’s home and speaking about sincere intellectuals who went in opposition to their trigger—or went in opposition to larger motives—and his response was, “Do you wish to begin from A?” When doing all your work and going for scientific accuracy, how do you stability that with the aesthetic you’re making an attempt to convey concurrently?
Rockman: That’s a enjoyable course of. As a result of that’s finished initially earlier than I begin making one thing, as soon as I determine what I’m doing and really feel assured that it’s credible and is sensible within the context of my objectives, then I’m good. As an illustration, I’m beginning an enormous mission for the Jewish Museum in a few weeks and assembly with the director of schooling. Will probably be constructed round looking, fishing, and agriculture artifacts of their assortment.
I don’t imagine the director of schooling is technically a scientist, however she’s an authority on the historical past of those artifacts. I’ll take no matter she says critically. So I’ll construct this portray round that, after which I get to some extent the place I do analysis and determine the place every thing goes. Acquired to verify it’s a dromedary, with one hump and never a Bactrian Camel lol. Then I modify hats and deal with the method of creating one of the best portray I can.
Jacobsen: Was there any mission in your historical past—thus far—that you simply’ve had in thoughts for an extended, very long time, however it was just too lofty or too pricey by way of effort and time? The place mid-sized tasks is perhaps–may not essentially be expedient, however they is perhaps…
Rockman: …profitable.
Jacobsen: Doubtlessly profitable—sure.
Rockman: Pay attention, I’m a small businessperson. I’ve to stability dangerous tasks that may promote someplace with issues I’m assured I’ll promote inside a comparatively cheap period of time. So, completely—and I’m always conversing with individuals about tips on how to get this stuff finished. I’ve been very fortunate, Scott, that I’ve had so many tasks that began as lofty pies within the sky and ended up changing into a actuality. However we’re not coping with film cash right here—it’s only a portray!
Jacobsen: Proper. Now, I’ve talked to AI individuals. I had two conversations with Neil Sahota, who’s a UN advisor on AI ethics or AI security. I requested him, “How a lot of that is hype?” And he stated there’s fairly a bit, however it nonetheless must be taken critically. So, on the inventive entrance, what are your ideas on creating AI that generates visible imagery?
Rockman: I’ve a mixed-bag response to AI. On one hand, it’s dazzlingly fascinating. Then, it jogs my memory of consuming a Twinkie—it feels nice whereas doing it, after which it’s simply rubbish afterward. To me, the sky’s the restrict by way of potential. It can revolutionize the workforce— Folks will lose jobs similar to each revolution.
However my job is to make distinctive objects that replicate the human expertise. And AI will not be the human expertise. It mimics issues which have already been finished and reconfigures them. However there’s an odd hangover to it—irrespective of how unbelievable it appears—and so they are unbelievable—there’s one thing acquainted. It’s like a dream you’ve already had—a hangover from a dream.
I’m certain AI will get higher and higher. However fortunately, I make objects. Hopefully, what’s attention-grabbing about my work is that it includes errors and reactions. Intimacy might be valued increasingly as our tradition evolves.
That’s my notion.
Jacobsen: The place do you assume the place is now for artwork activists, regardless of the “despair”?
Rockman: Nicely, there are different mediums—movie, streaming, or different types of shifting leisure that come out of the historical past of tv and flicks. For instance, The China Syndrome when that got here out in 1979— crippled the nuclear business. Sadly, on reflection, environmentally, it was most likely not for one of the best. So for those who inform human tales which can be relatable it is perhaps extraordinarily efficient. However I don’t assume what I’ve finished as far as an artist has been efficient.
Jacobsen: Do you assume collective artwork activism continues to be price pursuing, reasonably than particular person?
Rockman: Nicely, I don’t know what “collective” means. What does that imply?
Jacobsen: Like artists organizing underneath banners—Earth Day, or by symposia and conferences—organized round a theme related to local weather change activism? Issues like that.
Rockman: Environmental Activism has not been efficient for the reason that 1970’s. Civil rights activism was efficient. Homosexual and girls’s rights—have been efficient previously. The issue is that we’ve run out of time. It’s a physics experiment. It’s not negotiable.
Jacobsen: Sure, and that additionally goes again to the prior mini-commentary about how individuals, largely, aren’t physics-literate.
Rockman: Proper. However you need to perceive one thing, Scott—in America, big industrial, company, and world forces ensure persons are skeptical about science as a result of it’s of their finest curiosity. When science tells tales about industries like fossil fuels or plastics who wish to make money- they don’t wish to exit of enterprise.
Jacobsen: Sure. Not an accident. What do you assume the effectiveness of standard science communicators has been—your Invoice Nyes, your Carl Sagans, your Neil deGrasse Tysons, and others?
Rockman: I used to be fortunate sufficient to—effectively, I do know Neil. I do know Invoice Nye. They’re fantastic. I don’t assume they’re fairly as much as the duty. I don’t assume anybody is. We want somebody equal to Martin Luther King as a spokesperson who can tackle the mantle. That’s why the Bobby Kennedy affair is tragic—he might have been that particular person.
Jacobsen: What if we’re trying by a historic lens right here, from a generational psychology perspective? Give it some thought—throughout the peak activism period you’re referencing, there have been fewer media channels: tv and radio. A narrower distribution meant larger cohesion. Civil rights had figures like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and possibly Marcus Garvey as an mental legacy. Ladies’s rights had Gloria Steinem and others. These actions had leaders whom individuals needed to comply with—with enthusiasm.
What if there’s been a gradual slide over a long time towards cohorts that reply much less to singular, charismatic management? If that’s the case, the ways want to vary accordingly. What about that?
Rockman: Positive. No matter works. Possibly Muhammad Ali was an excellent determine for these points, and he put his profession and life on the road. He went to jail. I don’t see… I don’t see LeBron doing that, despite the fact that he’s somebody who has, a lot to his credit score, saved himself out of controversy and lives a life price emulating on many ranges. However I don’t see anybody taking these dangers in these generations.
Jacobsen: Sure. So, is there a big, risk-averse development?
Rockman: It’s a kind of corporateness. I don’t see Vince Carter—Air Canada—doing it.
Jacobsen: Who can be the one for this era now? Whoever makes use of “Sigma” and “No Cap” finest. What’s the longest piece you’ve ever taken to supply—and what’s the quickest? I do know, sorry. I’m doing extremes right here.
Rockman: I don’t know… The sketch I did of Manifest Future on a serviette once I was at a dinner sitting subsequent to Arnold Lehman, the then director of the Brooklyn Museum in 1999,was the quickest. Then making the rattling portray took 5 years which I completed in 2004.That was the longest. So there you go. It’s the identical piece.
Jacobsen: The official Earth Day poster for 2020 options photo voltaic panels in a vibrant pure setting. What impressed it?
Rockman: It was a tough course of, Scott, as a result of I saved developing with concepts that Earth Day deemed too destructive. And this was, in fact, earlier than the election. I used to be considering to myself, “Are you kidding me? What is that this—We Are the World or some fucking Coke industrial?” I used to be about to bail, and my spouse Dorothy stated, “Don’t be an fool. This can be a dream alternative for you.” You need to perceive that Robert Rauschenberg did the primary Earth Day poster in 1970, and my spouse used to work at Leo Castelli, the gallery that represented him. Now we have two Rauschenbergs. So, that is bucket listing. So, I talked to some mates. We devised the thought over a few beers. A lot to my shock, the Earth Day individuals preferred it. I used to be thrilled.
Jacobsen: Fast query—aspect notice. What beer?
Rockman: One of many native IPAs up right here in CTHeadway IPA.
Jacobsen: Do you ever drink Guinness?
Rockman: I’ve beloved Guinness, although it’s a little bit heavy. I had it extra once I was youthful and wanted much less train.
Jacobsen: That’s proper—it’s for molasses aficionados or one thing like that.
Rockman: Molasses—there you go.
Jacobsen: I bear in mind one time in a small city, there was this man named Veggie Bob. I had the cellphone quantity (604) 888-1223—that’s how small the city was. He ran Veggie Bob’s. Later known as it his Growcery Café. I bear in mind I purchased a bucket of molasses from him for no good motive. What ought to I ask… How is Madagascar?
Rockman: Unhappy and unbelievable.
Jacobsen: How unhappy? How unbelievable!
Rockman: These islands have distinctive biodiversity. Who doesn’t love land leeches and delightful lemurs? Alternatively, the human inhabitants is so determined for assets. It’s like moths consuming a blanket. Then, the Chinese language attempt to eat it, too. So, it’s unhappy.
Jacobsen: You had a current Journey to Nature’s Underworld exhibition, right?
Rockman: That’s in Miami. And I even have a gallery present in Miami known as Vanishing Level on the Andrew Reed Gallery.
Jacobsen: Was the previous one with Mark Dion?
Rockman: Sure. On the Lowe Artwork Museum in Miami.
Jacobsen: How was that collaboration going?
Rockman: We’ve been mates for forty years. About twenty works every from over the past 4 a long time are juxtaposed subsequent to one another.
Jacobsen: Forty years in the past, one would possibly hazard a guess—you drank Guinness in some unspecified time in the future.
Rockman: I did, principally within the ’80s.
Jacobsen: When motion motion pictures have been a really huge factor
Rockman: I used to be listening to a podcast about Predator—the film.
Jacobsen: Ah, sure. That’s very cool. What did you study?
Rockman: I realized so many issues. As an illustration, I realized that the primary location needed to be moved as a result of there was no jungle, and nobody might determine why that unique location had been chosen to shoot the film.
Rockman: Sure. That was the period of iconic film strains.
Jacobsen: “If it bleeds, we are able to kill it!”
Rockman: Sure.
Jacobsen: Or what was that different line… “Pussyface”?
Rockman: Was it?
Jacobsen: Good. You’re married to a journalist. What are your accomplice’s perceptions of journalism now—and her perceptions of how the general public views journalists now, based mostly in your conversations?
Rockman: My spouse Dorothy Spears, slowed down being an arts journalist as a result of she felt that the issues she needed to put in writing about for the locations she was writing for grew to become more and more influenced by market dynamics. And—I don’t wish to put phrases in her mouth—and that is my notion of her notion: the marketplace for promoting in some elements of those venues started to dictate or affect the journalism content material. And she or he didn’t need something to do with that.
Jacobsen: That was the tip of her journalism profession?
Rockman: No, however she simply moved on to different varieties of writing. She’s writing books now. A memoir about her expertise at Leo Castelli Gallery, for instance. So, no—she simply misplaced curiosity in being on the service of the publicity division of artwork of journalism.
Jacobsen: Promoting?
Rockman: Ish. It’s a really robust state of affairs.
Jacobsen: Positive. Sure. Particularly while you’re making a choice proper on the highest stage in North America.
Rockman: Precisely.
Jacobsen: That’s honest. What query have you ever all the time needed to be requested however have by no means been?
Rockman: I’m so fortunate that I’ve been requested so many questions—that anybody even cares about what I’m doing.
Jacobsen: That’d be enjoyable for those who might ask your self. What do you assume your youthful self, consuming an enormous pint of Guinness, can be asking your older self now? “Why are you consuming IPAs?”
Rockman: Ha! No, however critically—all of us have regrets. I’d give myself some recommendation at key moments: to not do sure issues and to do different issues.
Jacobsen: At what factors do seemingly good alternatives come up, however “all that glitters will not be gold”? What are some key indicators?
Rockman: You’d by no means know. Day-after-day, there’s some attention-grabbing e mail or supply. Issues typically go south, however you should be optimistic and hope one thing works out.
Jacobsen: So, this interview took a temper shift over forty minutes. I can’t inform if we went from despair to optimism or—
Rockman:Treatment or my martini kicked in.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Rockman: No, I’m kidding.
Jacobsen: That’s proper. That’s it.
Rockman: Sure.
Jacobsen: So, that’d be fairly a very good query: “Why are you consuming IPAs and martinis now reasonably than Guinness?” That’s my query to you.
Rockman: Relatively than what?
Jacobsen: Guinness into IPAs and martinis.
Rockman: You may drink extra of it with out feeling nauseated.
Rockman: Sure.
Jacobsen: Thanks very a lot on your time. I respect your experience.
Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson: It has been a busy year marked by writing, teaching, organizing, and composing/writing guitar music.
Jacobsen: There have been some ugly developments for reproductive rights for women in the States, particularly around Roe v Wade’s repeal. These aren’t new efforts. They are the culmination of decades of efforts. As we both know, and as Human Rights Watch stipulates, “…equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion—between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.” So, what is the intersection here with poor people, African Americans, and women in this plight?
Hutchinson: Black women are more likely to seek out abortion care than other groups and are disproportionately more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications. They also earn significantly less than white folks, are more likely to be in the workforce and to be the primary breadwinners for their families. Thus, economic justice and reproductive health care are inextricably linked for Black women and Black communities. If Black women and Black gender-expansive folks don’t have safe and equitable access to abortion care, birth control, and STD/STI screenings, then they will not be able to have bodily autonomy, self-determination or exercise control over their families and communities. Abortion is safer than childbirth and should be viewed as health care, period. ProPublica recently disclosed the preventable deaths of two Black women, Amber Thurman and – who were living in Southern states with abortion bans.
Hutchinson: It’s important to provide concrete resources and support to advance academic, career, and professional development for Black and PoC secular youth. Over the past decade, Black Skeptics has provided multi-year scholarships and other forms of financial support such as need-based grants and paid internships to K-12 and college students. We’ve provided leadership training in everything from gender-based/domestic and sexual violence prevention education to public speaking, civic engagement and community organizing. I regularly write letters of recommendation for my high school and college mentees and advise them on career paths. We also provide multigenerational mentoring and arts education to youth. These resources are especially important given the lack of safe secular humanist and queer-affirming spaces in communities of color.
Jacobsen: How is far-right Evangelical Christianity pushing Black religious Americans away from the Church and more towards secular alternatives?
Hutchinson: Younger Americans are the least religious in U.S. history and the most LGBT-aligned. Gen-Z African American youth are rejecting organized religion in greater numbers while embracing spiritual and secular alternatives. Gen-Z Black youth express disdain for the hierarchies, hypocrisies, abuse, and homophobia/transphobia of evangelical Christianity. Radical and progressive Black youth have called out the egregious respectability politics and double standards that are projected onto poor and working-class communities of color. They have also been critical of white evangelicals’ alignment with Trump’s white supremacist pathology and predatory capitalism. I see these views reflected in my students. A number of them have spoken and written about breaking from religious traditions because of the increasingly fascistic national climate as well as the anti-LGBT bigotry and sexism they’ve encountered in their own local faith communities.
Jacobsen: How do you use theatre, drama, and music, as a holding of space or place to educate and engage difficult subject matter for American social and political consciousness?
Hutchinson: Theater and music have been essential mediums for political expression. All of my theater pieces—from “Grinning Skull” to “White Nights, Black Paradise” “Rock ‘n’ Roll Heretic” and “Narcolepsy, Inc.”—have explored the intersection of workplace conflict, gender and racial injustice, queerness, segregation, and religious indoctrination. Theater is especially powerful because it is a space where I can create unique, idiosyncratic Black and PoC women and queer characters that are not ordinarily seen on stage/screen amplifying the lived experiences, world views, challenges, and cultural spaces that Black women across generations navigate, dealing with racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia, white supremacy, misogynoir, and other inequities. My first stage play, “Grinning Skull”, was set in the 1940s in L.A. and dealt with Black women washroom workers employed by the Pacific Electric Railway company and their dilemma on whether they should vote to unionize. My 2018 play, “White Nights, Black Paradise” (adapted from my 2015 novel of the same name) explores the sociopolitical and cultural dilemmas/trajectories of Black women in the Peoples Temple church movement, which was at the center of the largest murder-suicide of American citizens in U.S. history when nearly one-thousand members perished in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. My latest play, “The Kinderness” focuses on a Black woman-owned “reparative justice” and robotics company on the brink of an IPO that deploys white androids to perform corrective acts for Black descendants. It examines race and gender hierarchies in the workplace, Afrofuturist visions of historical redress and the perils of Black complicity with neoliberalism.
Hutchinson: WLP continues to implement youth leadership and sexual, domestic and gender-based violence prevention education programming in South L.A. school communities with a dedicated focus on Black girls, girls of color, and BIPOC queer and gender-expansive youth. The organization supports in-school student groups, conducts professional development training, and spearheads community rallies that amplify the disproportionate rates of gender-based violence experienced by Black women and girls.
Hutchinson: We continue to focus on providing support for social and gender justice initiatives, principally through fiscal sponsorship, critical pedagogy, paid youth internships, and scholarship awards for first generation BIPOC secular, LGBTQ+, undocumented, foster care, unhoused and system-involved youth (these awards have been in existence since 2013).
Hutchinson: The Black LGBTQIA+ parent and caregiver group is a safe space for parents/guardians of Black,queer and gender-expansive youth. The group has offered professional development, parent trainings, and general engagement for parents/guardians. It is on hiatus at this time but we continue to support the Black LGBTQ+ Youth institutes and student advocacy with the GSA Network.
Jacobsen: What are your next projects and areas of focus?
Hutchinson: I’m producing the “Outliers: Black Women’s Theater Showcase” at the Blue Door theater in Culver City/L.A. on January 26th. The showcase features work by me and fellow Black L.A.-based women playwright-directors Cydney Wayne Davis, Dee Freeman and Jessica Robinson. As I mentioned, I am working on “The Kinderness” play, which I hope to stage at the Hollywood Fringe Festival this summer. I also have two new folk rock songs in the works. One (“Lightning Rider”) focuses on my three times great grandmother, Harriet Stroope Knox, who was born enslaved in Clark County, Arkansas in 1825. The other (“Tinker Toy Train”) focuses on assembly line workers dealing with Amazon corporate kleptocracy. My music is available on Spotify.
Jacobsen: How can people get involved by donating time, expertise, money, manual labor, etc.?
Candace Gorham is the President of the American Humanist Association. She spoke with Canadian humanist and journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen for a recent interview.
Gorham is a licensed mental health counsellor and author of The Ebony Exodus Project: Why Some Black Women Are Walking Out on Religion–and Others Should Too and On Death, Dying, and Disbelief. She is a former ordained minister turned atheist activist, researcher, and writer on religion, secular social justice, and the African-American community. She is also a member of the Secular Therapist Project and The Clergy Project.
Gorham discussed the state of humanism post-election, particularly within African American communities. She discussed the general tone of distress among humanists due to Trump’s popular vote win and its implications for America. She emphasized the need for proactive activism, combating Christian Nationalism, and supporting affected communities. Gorham highlighted the unfamiliarity with humanism among Black communities and the opportunity for growth by reaching out and supporting those leaving religion but seeking meaning. She also noted the potential challenges with misinformation and the popularity of alternative beliefs like astrology and crystals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today [Editor’s Note: this interview took place in November 2024], Candace Gorham joins us to discuss various aspects of humanism in the immediate aftermath of the American election. The Republicans appear to have won significantly, which is concerning for many humanists, given their policies and the people within their circles.
Over the past few days, what is the general tone and feeling within American humanist communities based on what you are observing?
Candace Gorham: I would start with my immediate circle of friends and family. Many people are troubled, and there is a palpable sense of despair. I met with some staff today, and confusion and distress were evident. People are puzzled by how former President Trump managed to win again despite being considered offensive by many. The most unsettling aspect for many is that he won the popular vote this time, which has left people questioning their neighbors’ and friends’ beliefs.
Previously, when Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, it was easier to rationalize it as a quirk of the system. However, this time, there has been talk of a “red wave” and the unexpected loss of many Democratic strongholds. As I mentioned, people are mostly disturbed about what this signifies for the United States today. What does this say about the country we live in? It is distressing.
Jacobsen: Political activism, policy advocacy, and related efforts are also questioned. What is your approach to addressing this situation from a proactive, activist perspective for the American Humanist Association?
Gorham: Many members of our organization are eager to fight and engage in policy work, advocacy, and volunteerism. From our staff to our chapters and affiliates, individuals are ready to stand up and contribute to meaningful efforts. We are currently working on determining how we can best support them.
When I say “we,” I am referring to leadership, as we focus on finding ways to support our members and anyone seeking our assistance. How can we provide support in this moment of shock and despair? Furthermore, what can we do moving forward when it is time to engage in sustained activism? We have the staff capable of leading that charge, especially with our new Executive Director Fish Stark.
Jacobsen: Some issues will be more immediately relevant when targeting different areas for this work. Where do you see the most immediate impacts for humanist communities? Will it be focused on reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ rights? Or will it focus more on direct church-state separation and related issues?
Gorham: Yes, I would say that we need to find that balance again because so many people—women, LGBTQ+ individuals, men who support women’s rights—are affected and hurting in their everyday lives. As an organization, the AHA wants to craft a way to support people in dealing with their feelings of angst. At the same time, we want to provide a space for them to channel some of that energy. One of the significant focuses—without putting words in our Executive Director’s mouth—is fighting against Christian Nationalism.
Jacobsen: So, is that where we will see more of the work being done—focusing on church-state separation and combating White Christian Nationalism that has become pervasive and is part of why we are where we are today?
Gorham: Yes, that will be a major focus moving forward.
Jacobsen: As a licensed mental health counsellor, what would you recommend for young people who are experiencing their first major political shocks to consider for maintaining their mental health while potentially using that energy to become more proactive rather than staying in despair?
Gorham: Yes, I will share what I’ve been reminding myself today. The United States has been through ugly, dark times—nasty and frightening. Yet, we have survived and, in many cases, strengthened and improved. I keep telling myself that the institutions built over time—our Constitution, our organizations, and the structures that uphold American ideals—have been battered, bruised, and tested before. I am hopeful that they will hold once again because they have withstood challenges in the past. I encourage people to remember that we have weathered dark times before and emerged stronger, continuing to move forward and improve.
On a more personal note, I advise people to do what I did last night: have my daughter come over and spend time with friends, family, and support groups. Engage in activities that keep you connected and away from being alone, watching cable news, or endlessly scrolling through TikTok and feeling more overwhelmed. Surrounding yourself with supportive people or those who want to take action and who want to be involved in activism is essential. Whether it’s volunteer work or attending a march (and I am sure there will be many in the months to come), finding ways to channel anxiety and frustration can make a significant difference. It may help you feel more empowered and better able to cope.
Engage in activities; don’t just watch what is being discussed or happening passively. Participate in some way, even if it’s something as small as getting together with friends for a book club or similar activities. Or, if you feel up to it, do activist work, get out there on the streets, canvass, knock on doors, and do whatever you can.
Jacobsen: You wrote The Ebony Exodus Project—it’s been eleven/twelve years. So, what is the current status of what we can call The Ebony Exodus Project?
Gorham: In general, the number of Black women who identify as spiritual, religious, or Christian is still high, especially if we include not just Christianity but spirituality and belief in a divine entity or supernatural beliefs. At the time I wrote The Ebony Exodus Project, about 86% of Black women in America identified as Christians. From what I recall from the most recent Pew report I read, even though it’s a few years old, those numbers are still in the 80% range.
Anecdotally, from my experience as a Black woman in the Black community and from conversations with other women I know, there is a shift happening, particularly among younger women—by younger, I mean fifty and under. These women are moving away from organized religion and are creating their spiritual meanings and practices. One of the things I find interesting is that even among non-believers or those who consider themselves atheists, there is an increasing belief in horoscopes and crystals.
This trend, which I consider somewhat supernatural, is what I am seeing everywhere, and it distresses me even more than the Christianity I left behind. At least with Christianity, there were tangible aspects you could challenge, like the Bible or scientific claims. But how do you challenge horoscopes or crystals? Suppose someone believes that a crystal on their forehead will cure a headache. In that case, engaging them in critical thinking becomes more challenging.
I even have family members who, for lack of a better term, I describe as “woo-woo.” They are into crystals, horoscopes, and similar things. I always push back and ask, “Have you read anything about this beyond a TikTok video? Have you considered opinions from someone who doesn’t believe that horoscopes are real?”
And many people, and this ties back to the election, face the issue of disinformation and misinformation in America and probably worldwide. People get their news from social media in little one- to three-minute sound bites, memes, and similar formats. They need to get a complete picture of what is happening around them. This is also true when it comes to religion and supernatural beliefs.
Jacobsen: What about the state of humanism generally within an African American context? Is there increasing comfort and space for individuals coming out of the Black church? Or is it a repetition of past community mistakes, where there isn’t an open, authentic space for people to bring their cultural narratives and individual stories into a humanist space, leaving behind religion while taking on humanist values in the context of their subculture within the United States?
Gorham: I would say that a significant portion of the Black community is still largely unfamiliar with humanism and humanist thought. I remember when I was younger, in college, learning about humanism in the context of 17th and 18th-century writers who discussed it. At that time, I thought, “Oh, humanism. This isn’t Christian. This is the belief that we only have each other and must do good among ourselves.” It wasn’t considered a Christian way of thinking, so the term “humanism” was, and to some still is, a dirty word.
It’s almost synonymous with atheism for some people. Humanism is still a “dirty word” for those who know what it means, while the vast majority probably don’t even know the term. I believe this area has growth potential—how we reach out to more diverse communities that may have never heard of humanism. When I first got into the movement and wrote The Ebony Exodus Project twelve years ago, I often heard Black people say, “I never even heard the word atheist.” They didn’t know what it meant. Humanism is even less known. When I tell people, “Yes, I’m an atheist, but I’m also a humanist, and my humanism informs my ethics,” I often get, “Well, what’s that?”
People are starting to become more familiar with the term “atheist” or “non-believer,” but “humanist” is still not widely recognized. This is a major opportunity for our organization. Even those who believe in horoscopes and crystals still want a moral compass to guide them in understanding good, bad, right, or wrong. They may turn to astrology because they crave something that helps them build meaning.
When the American Humanist Association finds a way to communicate with these individuals effectively, it will be a significant breakthrough and a valuable resource. Many in the Black community are moving away from structured religion but are still seeking something to fill that void. That’s where we can step in and start to provide that support.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Regarding culturally identifiable figures, there are you, Ayanna Watson, Mandisa Thomas, Sikivu Hutchinson, and Debbie Goddard. There aren’t too many individuals who are necessarily recognizable as Black women humanists. It’s improving in terms of having leading voices, but to your point, incorporating more is necessary. Do you have any upcoming literary works or activities that people should be on the lookout for?
Gorham: As the new president, I’m trying to get my bearings with the organization. I’m new, and we have a new Executive Director. Much work needs to be done to get things rolling again. I’m not currently focusing on anything outside of that. I do have some book ideas percolating in the background. Still, I have yet to start on any of them because my current focus is supporting our new Executive Director and helping achieve some of his goals.
Jacobsen: Candace, thank you for your time and the opportunity to talk.
Kevin Hong explains how the opposition parties have weakened Taiwan’s government and defence budget while China increased military pressure and infiltration tactics. Taiwan’s civil defence efforts, recall elections, and economic significance, particularly in semiconductors and AI, play a key role in international relations. Hong highlights China’s aging population problem and government-controlled economy. He emphasizes that Taiwanese people are fighting for their sovereignty, rejecting China’s influence, and strengthening alliances with democratic nations like the United States.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Kevin Hong, who is involved with Taiwan’s humanistic pastafarianism movement and disaster relief. Since our last interview, Taiwan’s geopolitical landscape has changed significantly. I want to focus on that today because humanists are people who get involved in politics.
Taiwan is one of those sensitive areas, like Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, Ethiopia, Sudan, and so on. So, what happened with the Kuomintang (KMT) and the constitutional crisis?
Kevin Hong: In the last election on January 13, 2024, Taiwan had two major parties. One is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is pro-Taiwan. The opposing party is the Kuomintang (KMT), the Chinese Nationalist Party and is perceived as pro-China.
There is also a third party, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). Some people initially thought they were neutral, so some young voters supported them. However, some regret it because the TPP often sides with the KMT in parliament.
In 2024, the opposition parties passed many acts to restrict governmental power and budgets unreasonably. Some of these acts were unconstitutional. The highest courts ruled that certain provisions violated the constitution, marking a setback for the opposition.
They also made significant cuts to the government budget, particularly defence spending. The opposition-controlled parliament enacted substantial budget cuts, including significant freezes on defence spending, totalling NTD$160.7 billion.
In this geopolitical environment, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has increased its presence around Taiwan. They have deployed more aircraft and naval vessels in the region. Additionally, they have been cutting Taiwan’s undersea internet cables more frequently—five times in the past three months. Given this situation, we expect further attacks throughout the rest of the year.
Meanwhile, the United States government wants to encourage its allies—Europe, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan—to increase their defence budgets. This aligns with Taiwan’s interests. However, since the opposition parties dominate parliament, they have blocked most budget increases. You can check the exact figures online because even the Kuomintang struggles to track how much funding they have cut.
The opposition has also employed tactics akin to DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks, overwhelming the system with excessive legislative proposals to mislead and divert attention. This is their strategy. The Kuomintang’s parliamentary leadership—not the president, but their head in parliament—spearheads these tactics.
He frequently visits Hong Kong to meet with the Chinese government. How should I say this? His actions influence Taiwan. He continues meeting with them and probably—probably, I don’t know—but probably discusses how to interfere with our parties and lure the country into China’s control.
Jacobsen: It’s almost like a war, but a soft war.
Hong: It’s a gray zone war, I would say.
That’s the issue. We, the free Taiwanese people, want to change this. Amending our constitution is difficult, so we have launched mass recalls to re-elect the parliament. We are now in the second stage of a petition for recalls.
This process has multiple stages, but currently, 35 legislators are facing recall efforts. The recall act has passed the second stage, meaning these 35 recall elections may occur this year. That is how we are trying to protect our country politically.
As discussed in our previous interview, I work in civil defence for disaster relief. I want to train volunteers to help build a stronger society that can withstand disasters, including a potential war. That is how we are trying to safeguard our liberty.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: Regarding civil defence, what are the most important things that people outside of Taiwan should know? Also, what kind of disaster relief training do you provide?
Hong: The most important thing that people worldwide should understand is that many Chinese people live in Taiwan but do not identify as Taiwanese. Some have dual identities—Taiwanese in geography, but their national identity remains Chinese.
These Chinese individuals came to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War in 1947. They established a cruel, fascist, authoritarian regime that oppressed Taiwanese nationalism. They attacked our identity.
They silenced our language. They forced us to speak Mandarin and identify as Chinese. They arrived in the millions and brainwashed generations of people.
But we Taiwanese are a resilient nation. Now, we have elected the DPP, a Taiwanese party, to lead. Since 2016, Taiwan has had a DPP president. There are two presidents, Tsai(2016-2024), Lai(2024-). There was a DPP President Chen in 2000-2008, but president Bush said that he was a troublemaker. The US complained to Chen about supporting Taiwanese nation-building.
And until now, this issue persists. We still have to hold elections with people who do not identify as Taiwanese. It creates a chaotic situation, but it is part of our history.
After Japan lost World War II and the Kuomintang (KMT) lost the Chinese Civil War, millions of Chinese fled to our island. This caused a difficult situation that continues today.
I hope the people of the world understand that those who do not support Taiwan’s independence were never truly Taiwanese. No matter what happens with the recall efforts or the parliament, these individuals should not have been part of our electoral process in the first place.
The instability and political chaos should not be blamed on the true Taiwanese people. This stance may seem controversial, but we are still fighting. We are fulfilling our responsibility to resist the pro-China parties. Even if we lose politically, we are not truly losing—we are winning in spirit.
Regardless of the election results, it does not mean that we do not want to protect our homeland. The United States often asks whether the Taiwanese people want to defend themselves.
The answer is yes—Taiwanese people do want to protect our home. However, the Chinese citizens living in Taiwan do not. That is the core issue.
We want the world to distinguish between these two groups. Before the war, there were many pro-Russian voters in Ukraine. After the war started, some of them fled to Russia or even fought for Russia. The rest were the true Ukrainians.
Taiwan is in a pre-war Ukraine-like situation. Many people living here are not truly Taiwanese. That is why, even if the election results appear unfavourable, it does not mean that Taiwanese people do not want to protect their country.
The current parliament, which cut the defence budget, does not represent the people’s true will. We must acknowledge that there are two distinct groups in Taiwan—pro-Taiwanese and pro-Chinese—not just one. The world needs to understand that.
Jacobsen: One issue that people may be more aware of is the advanced AI and semiconductor technology being developed in Taiwan. This benefits the entire world.
Hong: Yes, particularly TSMC.
Jacobsen: Yes, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). TSMC reported a 39% revenue increase in the first two months of 2025 due to the rising demand for AI chips. Some people might wonder, “Why Taiwan?” Well, that is one reason.
If people only care about their AI chips and economic bottom line, that is one justification. However, there is also the human rights aspect. Can you also discuss the economic and technological side of this political situation?
Hong: First, I am not an expert in AI or the information industry. However, I can say that many people—both in Taiwan and internationally—believe that the semiconductor industry could encourage allies to step up and protect Taiwan.
Yes. But I want to emphasize something further. We are not using AI as a tool to make the world protect us. Taiwan’s strategic importance has existed long before our dominance in the semiconductor industry. Taiwan’s critical role was evident during the Korean War as early as the 1950s. Our strategic position became clear as part of the First Island Chain. Taiwan is at the center of this chain and serves as the first line of defence against communist expansion from the mainland.
Additionally, Taiwan is one of the most democratic and liberal societies in Asia. We have made significant progress in human rights and liberty. Regarding shared values, Taiwan aligns with Western democracies and allied nations that uphold freedom and democracy. We are an integral part of this international framework.
Jacobsen: Also, Taiwan is highly seismically active. In April, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck Taiwan, causing significant casualties and infrastructure damage. Were you involved in the disaster relief efforts?
Hong: First, we are accustomed to earthquakes, and our architectural designs are built to withstand earthquakes and typhoons. However, the Hualien earthquake was exceptionally strong, reaching a high-intensity level. Despite this, our rescue and disaster relief teams responded effectively, and the casualty count remained low. Taiwan has highly skilled and professional emergency response teams. Beyond our own country, we have also provided disaster relief abroad. For example, Taiwan sent aid and support when Turkey suffered a devastating earthquake in early 2023.
Jacobsen: How is Taiwan’s relationship with the United States under the current administration?
Hong: The United States has the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits to providing Taiwan with the necessary weapons and military support to defend itself against any force that seeks to alter the current status quo. After Trump’s first presidency, Taiwan significantly escalated its arms purchases and military cooperation with the U.S. This trend has continued under the current administration. Our government, including the prime minister, has also increased Taiwan’s defence budget, which now exceeds 3% of GDP if my memory is correct. The United States assists Taiwan in acquiring advanced military technology, which is critical to strategic cooperation.
Jacobsen: Given these developments, how do you feel about Taiwan’s future relationship with the U.S.?
Hong: I feel optimistic about Taiwan-U.S. relations. China, Russia, and Iran—this growing axis of authoritarian powers—seek to reshape the global order. However, the allied nations stand firmly against this. The world does not want these authoritarian regimes to succeed.
Jacobsen: Taiwan’s talent and strategic importance to the world will remain significant. Does Foxconn and its AI development have any relevance to the political situation? Also, how do you generally incorporate developments in AI and technology into your views on humanism?
Hong: AI cannot ask good questions; rather, it cannot truly engage in meaningful questioning. Or, let me clarify: AI can generate questions, but asking the right questions is the core issue for humanism, research, academic inquiry, and technological advancement. You need to formulate a good question before attempting to find an answer.
As it currently exists, Hong: AI lacks the cognitive ability to develop deep or insightful questions independently. However, using AI as a tool can be beneficial for humans. Throughout history, people have used tools to enhance thinking, solve problems, and address global challenges. AI is another tool in that tradition, and I am glad to have access to it. AI’s most immediate and useful application in humanistic work is its ability to store and retrieve information efficiently. We can feed AI large datasets and retrieve relevant information quickly when needed. This significantly enhances research and decision-making speed. However, there are specialists with deeper insights on this topic.
Jacobsen: That is a good point. Let’s shift gears. How is the president of Taiwan handling Chinese infiltration efforts?
Hong: Several measures are being taken. Let me check the latest news updates on this for you. The president just held a press briefing specifically addressing this issue. You can find official details in the press release, which I will send via messenger.
One key policy focuses on restricting Chinese nationals who have obtained Taiwanese residency or identification. Many Chinese citizens marry Taiwanese individuals and later obtain Taiwanese IDs (not full nationality but legal identification). Some of these individuals publicly express pro-China sentiments, openly saying that they want China to “conquer” Taiwan and “liberate” them. They often spread these ideas on platforms like TikTok, likely for attention or financial incentives.
Our government has begun cancelling their IDs to prevent them from undermining national security. If they wish to live under China’s rule, they can return to China. This policy was officially enacted today.
Additionally, Taiwan has tightened restrictions on dual identities. Some Taiwanese citizens secretly hold Chinese identification, which raises serious security concerns. The government is now systematically identifying and revoking Taiwanese IDs from individuals with dual affiliations. These measures are part of a broader strategy to counter internal security threats.
Jacobsen: That is a decisive approach.
Hong: Yes, and beyond individual actions, Taiwan has also established a Society Defense Resilience Committee. This committee, initiated by the president, plays a crucial role in strengthening Taiwanese civil defence and identifying security threats at the societal level.
Our society has built a resilient defence system to protect against enemies and safeguard the island. That is the essence of what the president is doing. That is what I can share with you.
Jacobsen: I was reading in the Financial Times that Taiwan recently revoked the residency of a Chinese TikTok influencer.
Hong: Yes. Taiwanese government employees are banned from downloading TikTok on their devices. However, this restriction only applies within the government—it is not enforced across society.
Jacobsen: A key takeaway from today’s discussion is that you are not relying on supernatural forces or divine intervention to solve your problems. You are facing reality as it is rather than waiting for gods to intervene. Ideally, the international situation will stabilize, but Taiwan is operating within the world as it exists right now. That is an important aspect of humanism.
Hong: Yes. The world is not merciful. It only helps those who help themselves.
Jacobsen: Here is something interesting. Mitsu Games makes a board game called 2045. The premise is a future Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Have you heard of it?
Hong: No, but I will check it out. 2045 sounds late for such a scenario. By then, China’s aircraft carriers will be outdated and too old to maintain a significant military advantage.
Jacobsen: That is a good point. Even now, Russia relies on aging Soviet-era military technology. China’s aging population is also a significant factor. It reached its peak population in February 2021, and since then, it has been declining. In the long term, China could experience a demographic crisis similar to South Korea or Japan, making governance increasingly difficult for its leadership.
Hong: That makes sense. A declining population creates economic and political challenges for any country. Yes, but China operates under a communist system, and its economy functions differently from a capitalist, market-based economy. In a free market, economic adjustments primarily affect the supply side. However, in a socialist economy, the government can manipulate demand as well.
To explain the difference, let me give an example. A few years ago, Western economists predicted China’s economy would collapse due to its aging population. The reasoning was simple—too many retirees, insufficient young workers, and insufficient domestic consumer demand. When a labour shortage occurs, wages typically rise, reducing profitability and economic growth.
However, in a socialist system, the government can intervene directly, altering supply and demand. Instead of allowing market forces to dictate outcomes, China can implement policies to redistribute labour, control wages, and artificially sustain economic growth. This is why many predictions about China’s immediate economic collapse have not materialized—at least, not yet.
Once wages rise, low-cost industries will relocate to other countries such as India and Vietnam. When that happens, China’s economy would normally suffer a decline. However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), under Xi Jinping, has already preemptively addressed this issue. Instead of allowing foreign companies to shift their investments abroad naturally, the Chinese government has actively pushed them to leave. Once these companies relocated outside China, job opportunities shrank, reducing overall employment.
With fewer jobs available, wages remained stagnant despite the labor shortage. This was a deliberate move to suppress demand and keep labour costs low. Even though the working-age population is shrinking, China’s government has ensured that wage inflation does not spiral out of control. In a sense, this was a calculated manipulation of market forces—a level of control that free-market economies would struggle to replicate.
Despite these strategies, China’s aging problem remains a major challenge. Encouraging people to have more children is nearly impossible under the current economic and social conditions. It is expected that China’s birth rate will continue to decline. However, the CCP has other methods of managing an aging society that may not be ethical or humane. If necessary, China could reduce its elderly population through means that other countries would never dare to implement. This is why many assume that China may never experience a full-blown aging crisis like Japan or South Korea.
Jacobsen: Are there any other areas you want to make sure we cover in this interview?
Hong: That depends on your audience.
Jacobsen: Oh, it’s a friendly audience—mainly people curious about Taiwan’s situation and the broader geopolitical landscape.
Hong: I see. In that case, we have covered most of the key issues. That should be good. Thank you very much.
Three days ago, I addressed a Croatian Christian association via virtual conference on clergy-related abuse, emphasizing journalism’s essential role as a watchdog exposing institutional misconduct. I argued that victims should be the primary voices, institutions secondary, with journalists facilitating balanced narratives. I urged acknowledgment of abuse without condemning entire denominations, advocating evidence-based investigations, interfaith dialogue, and robust reforms to protect victims and faith integrity. Citing historical scandals and cultural movements as context, I stressed that transparency and accountability are imperative. This speech within the context of the entirety of the conference will be shared with the Ecumenical Patriarch, EU Parliament, Roman Catholic Church, UN in Geneva, UNICEF, World Council, World Council of Churches, World Health Organization, and other major institutions, ensuring accountability and healing universally.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Journalism, first and foremost, is a human enterprise. It’s built on human observation, written for human consumption, and, primarily, concerns human enterprises. Just democracies, fair societies, accountable power, and the like, require journalists as critical watchdogs to bring otherwise hidden stories to the forefront. Clergy-related abuse is a complex and subtle issue with blunt outputs.
The primary voices of clergy-related abuse should be the victim who can give indications of patterns and see firsthand weaknesses in institutions that have misbehaved, abuse, and, often told lies or merely partial, softened truths about it. The secondary voices are everyone else in the institutional setup leading to the abuse in the system in the first place. Religious institutions have a minority of persons in positions of authority, unfortunately, who have abused. Journalists are a tertiary voice around these two.
The role of journalists is working with victims, with the majority of clergy who have not abused, and other researchers, to gather the narratives and collate those to get the wider scope of the patterns of the minority of clergy who have abused. People take the accountability problem seriously, as it’s bad for the victims, bad for the laity, bad for the image and authority of the clergy, and, essentially, bad for the representation of the faith. If you care about the future of Orthodoxy, then you care about this as an issue relevant to the integrity of the faith.
So, I wanted to take these few minutes to recognize the substantial problem before us, for a few reasons. Some factors played into the situation in which we find ourselves. First and foremost, the crimes of a select number of clergy. Second, these crimes went institutionally unchecked for many, many years in the largest denominations of Christianity–almost as a prelude to the broader cultural movements witnessed in many Western democratic societies.
Third, a tendency to reject the claims of victims when the prevailing evidence presents the vast majority of reported cases in the extreme cases of misconduct, i.e., rape, as evidentiarily supportable. False allegations happen, but these are a small minority and should not represent a false dichotomy of support. Institutions should establish robust processes to investigate all claims, addressing false allegations decisively while preserving trust in genuine victims.
Fourth, the diversification of the faith landscape of many Western cultures, particularly with the rise of non-religious communities and subsequent ways of life. One result is positive: Citizens clearly are more free than not to believe and practice as they wish. One negative result, the over-reach in non-religious commentary stereotyping churches as hotbeds of abuse, which creates problems–let alone being false. It doesn’t solve the problem, while misrepresenting the scope of it. It makes the work of the majority of clergy to create robust institutions of accountability for the minority of abusers more difficult and onerous. It’s comprehensively counterproductive.
If we want to reduce the incidence and, ideally, eliminate clergy-related abuse, for the first, we should acknowledge some clergy abuse without misrepresenting The Clergy of any Christian denomination as a universal acid on the dignity of those who wish to practice the Christian faith. It’s a disservice to interbelief efforts, makes the non-religious look idiotic and callous, and blankets every clergy with the crimes of every one of their seminarian brothers, and occasional sister, in Christ.
For the second, we should work on a newer narrative context for the wider story, see the partial successes of wider cultural movements, and inform of unfortunate trends in and out of churches for balance. For the third, we simply need to reorient incorrect instinctual reactions against individuals coming forward with claims as the problem rather than investigations as an appropriate response, maintaining reputation of accused and accuser, while having robust mechanisms for justice in either case. For the fourth, some in the non-religious communities, who see themselves as grounded in Reason and Compassion alongside Evidence, should consider the reasoning in broad-based accusation and consider with compassion the impacts on individuals in faith communities with the authority who are working hard to build institutions capable of evidence-based justice on one of the most inflammatory and sensitive types of abuse. Interfaith dialogue can be slow, quiet, but comprehensive and robust in the long-term–more effective and aligned with both the ideals of Christ or Reason, Compassion, and Evidence.
To these four contexts, journalists can provide a unifying conduit to the public in democratic societies to discuss the meaning of justice in the context of the Christian faith living in democratic, pluralistic societies. We cannot ‘solve’ the past errors, but can provide a modicum of justice for victims and create a future in which incidents are tamped to zero for a new foundation to be laid. Then ‘upon that rock,’ we do not have repeats in the Church as we have witnessed in other contexts discussed over the last few decades:
1991 – Tailhook Scandal (U.S. military sexual harassment scandal)
2012 – “Invisible War” documentary (exposing military sexual assault)
2014 – #YesAllWomen (response to the Isla Vista killings)
2017 – Australia’s Royal Commission Report (child sexual abuse in institutions)
2017 – #MuteRKelly (boycott of R. Kelly over sexual abuse allegations)
2018 – #MeTooBollywood (Bollywood’s reckoning with sexual misconduct)
2018 – #MeTooPublishing (exposing sexual harassment in the literary world)
2018 – #WhyIDidntReport (response to Brett Kavanaugh hearings)
Cole Reinbold is a dedicated student leader and experienced financial steward currently serving as Secretary-Treasurer for the British Columbia Federation of Students in New Westminster. With a robust background in student governance at Vancouver Island University, Cole has contributed as a Governor, Senator, and Chairperson, ensuring strong financial oversight and effective policy development. Their commitment to advocacy and educational excellence is evident in their work on community campaigns and external relations. Cole’s leadership skills, strategic planning expertise, and advocacy for students empower them to advance organizational missions and create impactful change in higher education. Passionate leader inspiring positive change. Reinbold discussed challenges such as changes in policies by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) affecting international students. These changes significantly impact tuition revenue as international students pay substantially more than domestic ones. Additionally, Reinbold addressed the gap in provincial and federal funding for postsecondary education, which has decreased dramatically since the 1970s. To combat these issues, BCFS advocates for Open Educational Resources (OERs) to reduce costs and pushes for better funding for Indigenous students. The federation’s strategy includes working on campaigns like ‘Grants not Loans’ and supporting financial literacy to alleviate student debt pressures.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Cole Reinbold. How are you doing?
Cole Reinbold: I’m doing well. How about you?
Jacobsen: Good. So, what are the most pressing issues for the BCFS?
Reinbold: The timely issues pressing for us are the recent announcements by IRCC—Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. Changes to the number of international students permitted in the country impact the amount of funding institutions receive from tuition fees. In BC and across Canada, international students, on average, pay five times more in tuition than domestic students.
This is a way to fill in the gaps regarding what provincial and federal funding should be for postsecondary education. It’s decreased from 80% in the seventies to less than or barely 40% today. With that, there isn’t the 2% cap on tuition fees that there is on domestic tuition fees. Domestic tuition fees have a 2% cap on increases every year, but international tuition fees don’t have that cap. So, considering there’s not enough funding and there isn’t a cap on international tuition fees, what are institutions going to do?
They’re going to raise international tuition fees. So, when the federal government reduced the number of international students last year, institutional deficits to tens of millions of dollars were suddenly becoming the norm this year in BC. That is one of the biggest issues that we’re fighting right now. We are created to provide advocacy, representation, and services to our 170,000 members.
Jacobsen: What other affordability and access issues aren’t as obvious as international students making up the slack of provincial funding?
Reinbold: Yes. Another big campaign we have is OERs. We advocate that all institutions and instructors adopt open educational resources (OERs). These are textbooks, course materials, and entire course packs made by instructors in BC and provided for free to students.
When you do not have to pay $500 for a textbook, it makes education much more inaccessible and affordable because you’re paying, as a domestic student, around, on average, $500 to $2000 a course. But then, adding another $500 that you didn’t know about often makes students drop a course entirely. So that’s something that we’re working on. We’ve recently added to our campaign plan to lobby the federal and provincial governments to add more funding for Indigenous learners because there’s a significant educational attainment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners. That is another big thing that we’re working on.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: What changes in governmental policy, provincially and maybe federally, have made you shift any other priorities?
Reinbold: The biggest one is the IRCC. Many international students are our members, so they’re always front and center in our advocacy. But we’ve been full throttle on advocating for international students this year. Yes.
That’s been it. We’ve previously advocated for the 2% cap on domestic tuition fees. When that was deregulated in the early 2000s, that was a big push. So, our advocacy revolves around what the current government in power is doing. If they’re making education less accessible and affordable for students, that is where we will push our advocacy.
But we also do other things, like ‘Let’s Get Consensual.’ So, we help our member locals have that campaign on their campuses in September, which is sometimes referred to as the red zone for sexual assault on campus. ‘Let’s Get Consensual’ is a fun way of teaching students about consent and emphasizing that it’s everybody’s responsibility.
Jacobsen: In terms of strategic direction, has the core mandate of BCFS evolved in response to the changing postsecondary landscape?
Reinbold: The mandate of the BCFS lies in our constitution, which is unchanging. It states that we are to provide services, advocacy, and representation to our members. So, while our constitution doesn’t change, how we address that will change depending on the current landscape in the province.
Jacobsen: What about campaigns like the Grants Not Loans campaign and Open Textbooks Now, which you alluded to before?
Reinbold: The Grants Not Loans campaign is self-explanatory in the title, but grants are upfront money given to students at the same time as their loan they do not have to repay. This is at the core of what we do: making education more accessible and affordable because it makes it much easier for students and first-generation learners when you don’t have to pay it back. Sometimes, the government will say, ‘So what we’re going to do to make education more accessible is we’re going to increase the amount of loan we will give you.’ So they’re increasing the amount of debt that we’re “so lucky” to be able to get. So, we advocate increasing the number of grants, not the number of loans.
We did have that win a couple of years ago when interest on student loans was eliminated provincially in BC, the first province to do it, and then nationally. The government is no longer making money on student loans, so why not go all the way and give us grants? And then, ‘Open Textbooks Now,’ I already spoke about that. Still, we work with BCcampus, which is the organization that administers that. They’re a proxy government organization, so they get funding from the government to do that work. That’s good because the government acknowledges that open textbooks are a way to make education more accessible. So we work with BCcampus. They give us the latest research and help us administer the campaign to our member locals.
And then on the ground, what the member locals do is they try to individually convince professors, departments, deans, all that kind of stuff, to adopt open educational resources, and even let them know that there are grants that instructors and professors can take on, so that they can have time to work on the open educational resources instead of having to work on it on the side of their desk for free. They can get paid to work on an open educational resource.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Indigenous learners and closing that educational attainment gap. That starts early in postsecondary, but it’s another way to combat and target it. But it is also a way to tackle that at multiple stages, at least within your remit in terms of postsecondary education. What about other diverse and marginalized groups that have a similar, or maybe less severe, educational attainment gap that can be covered through the work of BCFS?
Reinbold: Yes. Our delegation directs the work of the BCFS, so our member locals attend annual general meetings. The groups with the lower educational attainment gap identified by our membership include Indigenous students. If you look at the research, there are lower educational attainments for our first-generation learners and also LGBTQIA2S+ learners, and those marginalized groups, equity-deserving groups. But we have not been directed to work on that.
We do have a campaign called the Unlearn campaign. We have been directed to do that, and it is similar to ‘Let’s Get Consensual’ in that it’s an educational campaign teaching our members to unlearn homophobia, racism, and transphobia, which has become a pressing issue recently.
We educate our members on that.
Jacobsen: What about coalition campaigns as part of the BCFS’s overall strategy? How do you select which external campaigns to endorse? Is it timeliness? Are perennial issues at the top of the list?
Reinbold: So, the BCFS, we are experts in postsecondary education but not in everything. So, we have our coalition partners who help us with the research and know-how to discuss these issues.
They’re chosen in multiple ways. A member local can bring them to an annual general meeting. The local member selects it, and then the floor debates it, or the federation itself can have it recommended to the executive committee. Then, the executive committee will bring it to the annual general meeting. Typically, we pick partners who are experts in their field and recognized as big names. So when we want to talk about what a living wage is and what a living wage should be for a student, instead of going to a single professor, we go to Living Wage BC, who have been doing this work for about half a decade, I believe. So, choosing our coalition partners happens in one of two ways.
It’s a two-pronged issue. It can be brought forward by an individual member locally or by the executive committee. Ultimately, all members decide upon it at an annual general meeting.
Jacobsen: Rising living costs, inflation, and student debt are issues for approximately every student, but that’s a staggeringly small number of students. How do you help support students trying to address those as best they can?
Reinbold: Yes, so, our students’ unions and our local members will sometimes have courses on financial literacy that can help them with it. It doesn’t take away inflation or anything like that. Still, they do have those courses that first-year, second-year, and third-year students can take, and we do advocate to the provincial government about how students feel the compounding cost of everything. Everything is so expensive for every person in British Columbia. Still, students feel it so much more because, on top of rent, food, gas, and insurance, they also have tuition and textbooks.
And then to further compound that, because students are students, they can’t work full time. We remind the provincial government that to ease this burden on students, we need to freeze and progressively reduce tuition fees. So that’s how we’re working on the cost of living, is through that. Then, through the work of our coalition partners, we will sign on to campaigns, stand in solidarity, and sometimes lobby together about the cost of living.
Jacobsen: What additional services or resources might be introduced to help students navigate the financial challenges they’re coming to?
Reinbold: Currently, we don’t have any services directly addressing financial literacy or the cost of living. But we do have our health and dental plan.
So we have multiple students’ unions on this big block health and dental plan, which helps keep the rate low. It’s one of the lowest rates in the country for our health and dental plan. So students can get their teeth cleaned twice a year and get everything else they might need for under $200. So it’s a good price because so many people come together. Another thing we do to keep costs low, but not directly—members don’t feel this, but our member locals do—is coordinate bulk purchasing together.
So, economies of scale, if you’ve ever taken economics, the more of something you buy, the better over price you can get. So we do that with the health and dental plan, and we also do that with our pens, highlighters, toques, and swag that we give out to our members. We’re trying to fight the cost of inflation by pooling all of our resources because, as our slogan says, we are stronger together.
Jacobsen: So when it comes to issues in which you are experts, how ever, it’s an intractable problem. What are those? By “intractable,” you, as an organization, cannot solve those things. It’s the boulder in the river that you must be the water flowing around.
Reinbold: I will try to answer this question, but let me know if it isn’t exactly what you want. So, a big problem that we are trying to address right now is the chronic lack of underfunding in postsecondary in BC.
While, yes, the BCFS has 14 out of 26 public postsecondary institutions under our umbrella, we alone cannot solve the chronic underfunding crisis that’s going on in BC. Our institutions are crumbling, so we need to work with labour unions, trade unions, and other students’ unions to say to the provincial and federal government that we need funding now more than ever. So, we lobby those groups. We also have coalition partnerships with CUPE, BCGEU, and all the big names, and we also collaborate with larger institutional student unions quite often. So, yes, the big thing that we’re trying to work on that we can’t do by ourselves is address the chronic underfunding crisis and getting that $500,000,000 infused back into the postsecondary system because that is our direct lobby ask that would take us back to before all the massive cuts and the defunding of public education that we saw in the early 2000s.
Jacobsen: This is the North American can-do attitude. ‘There are no intractable problems. It’s difficult but not impossible.’ Last question: Are there direct attacks on postsecondary education in British Columbia? Political squabbles and policy fights can result in delays in funding. Yet something more, political and social language and movements that work to undermine the success and efforts of postsecondary institutions, either individually or through associations and federations like yourself.
Reinbold: So, a big thing we’ve seen in the past decade is that institutions are no longer seen as places of public knowledge that better society for the greater good; they are now seen as businesses.
This can be seen through the gutting of funding that we’ve seen in the past decade and the international education strategy document that came out under the Christy Clark government; as soon as that document came out, funding plummeted, and then suddenly, there are international students propping up the entire system. So the biggest threat that we are seeing to postsecondary right now is the complete divestment from postsecondary education, and how in the election platform this year, the provincial election, not in a single party’s platform, was postsecondary mentioned. Postsecondary bleeds into every single sector. You can’t run an economy without postsecondary. How will we solve the overdose crisis without paramedics, social workers, and mentors?
How are we going to solve the housing crisis without carpenters? You can’t. So, the biggest attack right now is the government not addressing the dire need for postsecondary education. You will not have a future workforce if you don’t invest in future workers. So, the government is working against itself and the future it wants to create by not investing in postsecondary education.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it. Yes, yes, no worries.
Andreea Bourgeois, Director of Economics at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discussed private investment rebounding in Q4 due to declining borrowing rates, easing supply chain delays, and labor shortages. High interest rates had previously discouraged large equipment purchases, and supply chain issues delayed investment. Labor shortages also impacted businesses, especially in skilled roles. Concerns over potential U.S. tariffs have lowered optimism among exporting and importing small businesses, particularly in manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. Domestic businesses remain stable but still face supply chain vulnerabilities. Small business trade data highlights economic uncertainty. Andreea Bourgeois emphasized shifting economic trends and provided resources for further analysis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What factors contributed to the private investment rebound in the fourth quarter of last year?
Andreea Bourgeois: The most significant factor was the decline in borrowing rates, as interest rates dropped. When we run our economic model, we use survey data that includes a question on short-term investment plans. Investment levels among our members have been very modest.
So, when we process that data through an econometric model, we’re not going to see large investment numbers. Investment had been negative post-pandemic.
One reason was supply chain issues—even if businesses wanted to invest, delays in delivering equipment made purchases difficult, sometimes taking months.
The second major factor was high interest rates, which discouraged businesses from financing large equipment purchases.
I’m not talking about small office supplies—a smart stapler, for example, wouldn’t impact investment trends. I mean large-scale machinery—tractors, industrial equipment, and technology infrastructure, which can cost millions of dollars.
With borrowing costs so high, business owners simply had no appetite for major investments. We saw a temporary rise in demand when the economy first reopened, and consumer demand skyrocketed—canoes, paddleboards, and anything that allowed people to get outside sold out everywhere. Even bicycles were in short supply globally.
Jacobsen: I remember hearing about that situation.
Bourgeois: Yes. The shortage was caused by a single missing component—a small part manufactured in China. When it couldn’t be shipped, companies had to either:
Find an alternative supplier in Canada,
Redesign products to eliminate that part, or
Simply wait until supply chains recovered.
This situation caused investment to tick up slightly, but with high prices and interest rates, appetite for investment remained low. Now that borrowing costs are decreasing, we’re seeing investment intentions rise again.
Another factor—though not as significant as interest rates—was labor shortages. Post-pandemic, labor shortages were the number one issue for small businesses. Many couldn’t find workers because:
Government support programs were still in place,
Workers were still recovering from illness,
Businesses had to offer more sick days to accommodate health concerns.
As a result, many business owners had to rethink their operations, especially in labor-intensive industries. Today, labor shortages have eased somewhat, thanks to high immigration levels. However, that does not mean businesses are no longer struggling to find workers.
Instead, we’re now dealing with skilled labor shortages. It’s not that people aren’t available—it’s that the people available don’t always have the right skills. This, in turn, affects investment in technology.
For example, a business owner might buy advanced equipment, but if their employees lack the skills to operate it, the investment goes to waste. So, while borrowing costs and interest rates were the primary factors influencing investment, labor shortages and inflation also played a role.
Jacobsen: There are a lot of overlapping factors running through my mind right now.
We’ve got a minute before this call ends, because I’m using a trial version and I’m cheap.
So here’s my proposal:
We disconnect at :15 past the hour,
The same link should still work,
If we don’t end the call completely, we should be able to rejoin,
And that will give me time to grab some coffee.
Jacobsen: There are talks of tariffs from the United States under the Trump administration. If a 25% tariff is imposed on Canadian products, what would be the general impact? More specifically, what would be the impact on the Canadian economy in Q1?
Bourgeois: Many high-level economists have estimated and calculated the potential impacts from different angles. Recently, I read an article predicting that the effects would be devastating across all sectors, though some industries would be hit harder than others.
I don’t want to overstep into their territory, but what I can say is that the implications would be vast—for businesses, consumers, and governments. Bottom line: this would affect everyone. However, I do have something unique that most economists don’t—real data on how small businesses would be impacted.
Using the same CFIB survey, we wanted to enrich the dataset and better understand how these tariffs would affect small businesses specifically. Last year, we reviewed our survey methodology—and given how much I care about this survey, it’s like my fifth child, if you will.
We compared our dataset to similar surveys from other countries and asked: “What are we missing?” One key area we identified was gathering more detailed information about the businesses themselves. We already collect data on:
Business location,
Number of employees,
Industry sector,
Products or services sold.
But we were missing critical trade data. So, we added new questions to determine:
Do they export?
Do they import?
Are they part of the event sector?
This last point is important. For example, during the pandemic, we saw major disruptions in the events sector—but that’s not the same as tourism.
The event sector is its own industry.
Tourism is separate.
Hospitality is even broader, covering both and more.
To capture this data, we introduced an additional, completely voluntary section to our survey in July. We call it the Business Profile Survey. At the end of the regular survey, members have the option to click through and answer a few additional questions. They’re not even questions in the traditional sense—they’re more like demographics.
Bourgeois: When you fill out a survey, at the end, they often ask you demographic questions—your age, income category, or other details. These questions help the researchers contextualize responses. We have implemented a similar approach for our CFIB members.
One of the new questions we added to our Business Profile Survey focuses on international trade activity. Starting in July of last year, we gave members the option to identify their trade activity by clicking on a response:
They export,
They import,
They do both, or
They do neither (entirely Canada-focused businesses).
By cross-analyzing these responses with optimism levels, we created an Optimism Index for these subcategories. If you check our website—and I can share a link with you after this call—you’ll see that optimism levels for exporting businesses have dropped at an alarming rate since November.
Now, for someone looking at the data without context, they might simply say, “Oh, there’s a sharp decline in November.” But if you factor in policy developments, you’ll notice that November was also the first time that U.S. tariff discussions began escalating. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a tariff threat, but it was the first major policy shift that impacted business confidence.
Jacobsen: That makes sense.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Bourgeois: It’s also important to remember that no index remains perfectly stable. If an index is completely flat all the time, it means it’s not a reliable indicator. Nothing is truly static—not even body temperature.
Your weight fluctuates slightly every day.
Some days, business owners are optimistic; on others, they’re not.
A large unexpected expense can shake confidence, while a strong sales day can boost it.
So, while fluctuations are normal, what stands out here is that we’ve recorded a significant 8-point drop in optimism among exporting businesses since November. Looking at sectoral data, the businesses most affected by export concerns belong to:
Manufacturing,
Professional services,
Transportation,
Wholesale,
Agriculture.
This isn’t surprising—these industries are highly dependent on international trade. However, what makes this dataset unique is that it is small business-focused. Unlike traditional trade reports, it does not include large corporations.
For example, Canada’s number one export to the U.S. is energy products—oil, gas, and natural gas. That data is dominated by major corporations, not CFIB members. Small businesses typically export niche products—things like machinery components, screws, maple syrup, or specialty goods related to larger industries.
If you are exporting crude oil, you’re not a CFIB member—that’s a large-scale corporate operation. So, our data captures the direct impact of trade shifts on smaller, independent businesses. Interestingly, we also saw a drop in optimism among importers.
Even businesses that only buy from foreign markets are feeling the impact of potential retaliatory tariffs from Canada—particularly on U.S. imports. This fear is causing uncertainty, which affects business decision-making.
Now, looking at domestic-only businesses, their optimism levels have remained relatively stable—not perfectly flat, but with no major downturns. These businesses typically have:
Local supply chains,
Local customer bases,
Minimal exposure to international disruptions.
Take a small bakery, for example. You probably have a favorite local bakery, where everything feels entirely local. However, even that small bakery is likely dependent on at least one imported product—whether it’s a specialty ingredient, packaging material, or equipment component.
For example, when the war in Ukraine began, we were running the same survey. Did the survey immediately capture the economic impact of the war? Not right away. However, what it did capture were hundreds of comments from business owners.
One I remember vividly was from a small hotdog stand owner. He wrote: “I can’t get my mustard. My mustard supplier is in Ukraine.” That’s how global events trickle down—even for businesses that don’t directly engage in international trade. And now, we’re starting to see similar concerns emerge again, as uncertainty around tariffs and supply chains increases.
So, you see something we don’t, and there was also another specific case—a type of flour used by bakeries. I can’t recall the exact kind, but it’s a specialized variety that requires a specific climate. So, as much as you love your local bakery, the likelihood is that at least one ingredient they rely on comes from outside the country.
And that’s what will have the biggest impact on all of us.
Jacobsen: Do you have any charts or final comments?
Bourgeois: Unfortunately, it’s an exciting yet troubling time to observe Canadian economics. The economic landscape is shifting, and we might see an even more dramatic turn next week (first week of February). But I say that with a sense of concern, not excitement. I wish we weren’t seeing these changes. I’ve witnessed economic shifts firsthand, coming from a communist country—Romania. Here are some relevant links for further reading:
“Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, families, and health systems.”
World Health Organization, Abortion, Fact Sheet (updated 31 March 2022)
“Prosecuting women and girls for abortion is not only cruel and discriminatory, but also puts their health and lives in danger by driving them to clandestine and unsafe procedures.”
Margaret Wurth, Women’s Rights Researcher at Human Rights Watch, quoted inEl Salvador: End Abortion Prosecution (September 16, 2019)
“An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. It is basic healthcare needed by millions of women, girls and people who can get pregnant. It’s estimated that one in four pregnancies ends in an abortion every year. In places where abortion is legal and accessible and where there is less stigma, people can get abortions safely and with no risk. However, in places where abortion is stigmatised, criminalised or restricted, people are forced to resort to unsafe abortions. It is estimated that 25 million unsafe abortions take place every year, the vast majority of them in developing countries, and can lead to fatal consequences such as maternal deaths and disabilities. All people have a right to bodily autonomy which is another reason why anyone who can become pregnant should be able to get an abortion.”
“Unsafe abortion is an important preventable cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.”
“Good sexual and reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system.”
Abortions happen: Whether legal or illegal, safe or unsafe, women get abortions, by free volition or coercion. If legal and safe, over time, the rates go down and women’s health goes up. If illegal and unsafe, the rates go up and women’s health goes down. Ergo, if one cares about the health of the woman, abortion should be safe, legal, and available.
British Columbia, where I live in Canada, does have anti-abortion groups, or anti-women’s reproductive choice groups. Most of the rhetoric seems to be grounded in religious orthodoxy, faith-based arguments. Most of the agitators for restrictions on women’s rights or gender parity in this regard are the churches. Therefore, at least in the province of British Columba, faith-based opposition, though well-meaning, often overlooks public health evidence, particularly those far more in support of the advancement of women’s reproductive rights. The advocacy coming from select faith-based institutions is against abortions, even outlawing them within religious institutions–almost exclusively Christian in this province.
As per the excerpts at the top, if their vision were implemented, based on the evidence, these would lead to injuries and deaths for women exclusively, otherwise preventable. If the argument is that these are grounded in a particularist version or tenet of their faith, then the faith would lead to real-world harm to women needing reproductive health services. The churches to be covered today include Christ Covenant Church (Langley), Precious Blood Parish (Surrey), Immaculate Conception Parish (Delta), St. Francis de Sales Parish (Burnaby), St. Mary’s Parish (Vancouver), Sacred Heart Parish (Delta), St. Anthony of Padua Parish (Vancouver), St. Patrick’s Parish (Vancouver), and St. Joseph’s Parish (Port Moody). These are conservative activist churches based on anti-abortion/pro-life positions.
I am not writing this for me, but I am writing for countless people, as per my and others’ experiences in these Christian communities, who when they write about religious over-reach or illegitimate positions in community are harassed, intimidated, have trouble in employment, in familial contexts, with friends, with employers, issues with church theology, and the like. Those uprooted from ordinary community safety because of their dissent, including the women shamed and guilted, and misinformed by church theology, around practical matters of life and pragmatic decisions about reproductive health between a medical doctor and them. Atheists are the victims of highly negative prejudice, bigotry, and so on, and subsequent negative outcomes in mental health and social context based on treatment by believers.
Gervais et al. (2011) found social prejudice and distrust against those nonbelievers. Weber et al. (2012) found discrimination and negative affect leading to psychological distress for atheists. Cragun et al. (2012) found frustration and isolation based on social stigmatization and marginalization for nonbelievers. Edgell et al. (2016) found atheist stigma arises from assumptions of morality linked to religiosity, thus irreligiosity immorality based on this bigotry. Simpson & Rios (2017) found negative stereotypes of moral deficiency contributing to avoidance and emotional prejudice against nonbelievers. Now, that’s the environs and the fact for many nonbelievers living in believer communities. What about the anti-abortion activism?
My home municipality of Langley, British Columbia, Canada, is the home to Christ Covenant Church, who made headlines in the Aldergrove Star. On October 16, 2021, 10,000 pink and blue flags were placed on the church lawn led by Elyse Vroom. Each flag represented 10 aborted fetuses per flag, or the per annum estimates in Canada. The protest banner was “We Need a Law” for legislation restricting late-stage and sex-selective abortions. Vroom made a critique of the lack of a federal abortion law, which stems from the 1988 Morgentaler decision–the founder of Humanist Canada or the formal humanist movement in Canada. The point was to urge MP Tako Van Popta and Prime Minister Trudeau to protect the ‘pre-born.’
Precious Blood Parish in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, was reported on, by BC Catholic. It is an annual anti-abortion event by Life Chain held across Canada as a silent vigil to raise awareness about abortion. Ironic, first, people need to be properly informed to make free, prior, and informed consensual decision about this. Where, the point of this faith-based conservative activism is to raise awareness about abortion as a moral evil. They organized October 5 and 6, and in other locations including outside St. Joseph’s Parish in Port Moody and near Surrey Memorial Hospital in Surrey
Immaculate Conception Parish in Delta has a dedicated Pro-Life Group focused on participation in global anti-abortion events under the common misnomer ‘pro-life.’ They look to participate in Pro-Life Sunday (June), Life Chain (October), and March for Life (May). Sacred Heart Parish is in Delta too. It has the “Hope for Life” Pro-Life Ministry. St. Joseph’s Parish in Port Moody, mentioned earlier, emphasizes the same, having a Pro-Life Ministry as well, while extending into euthanasia too. St. Francis de Sales Parish in Burnaby is the same with a Pro-Life Ministry.
Vancouver has St. Mary’s Parish, St. Anthony of Padua Parish, and St. Patrick’s Parish. St. Mary’s Parish has a Pro-Life Minister with monthly prayer sessions on every third Monday of the month. They pray with the hope to seek means by end abortions. Harmless, in and of itself, because prayer doesn’t work, as per the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), published in 2006. St. Anthony of Padua Parish has another Pro-Life Ministry, which organizes more prayers with an emphasis on a prayer for abortion facility workers–to have them seek ‘truth’ and reconsider their roles. St. Patrick’s Parish has a ministry, too, but under a sleight of hand difference with the name Pro-Life Society.
As is thoroughly clear, these are ministries–first and foremost–based in churches with an emphasis on Christianity. Again, they’re about awareness building on a religious view, which, if merely a belief, is harmless while, if implemented, will lead to suffering for women and families intergenerationally based on known international cross-cultural evidence. I couldn’t find much else in the manner of substantive anti-abortion activist work in British Columbia, Canada. They come primarily, arguably substantively solely, from the Christian churches. It’s not their love of women’s choice preventing the views becoming imposed; it’s the impotence of their love to impose a restriction of women’s reproductive rights.
For any human rights working to protect safe and equitable abortion access, the health and wellbeing of women seeking abortions, and prevent Christian religious over-reach into the public arena and the individual lives of women, again, we should keep a close eye on these contexts and churches in this province, as they’re advocating, in the evidence analysis internationally, for eventual restrictions on women’s freedom and harming the live of women and families in a something ultimately personal in choice.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: September 26, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: March 8, 2025
Abstract
Selena Quintanilla’s rise to fame was a product of both her immense talent and a confluence of factors that set the stage for her success. This interview with J.D. Mata explores the conditions that allowed Selena to transition from a young Tejano artist into a global icon. Mata highlights the role of Tejano music’s golden age, the influence of major record labels, and the unwavering support of key industry figures, including DJs, managers, and promoters. Additionally, the conversation examines how Selena’s crossover potential into American pop was cut short by her untimely death, solidifying her as a legendary figure. By contextualizing Selena’s trajectory, this discussion sheds light on the broader cultural and business mechanisms that shape musical legacies.
Keywords: American Dream, audience engagement, crossover potential, DJs in Tejano music, family support in music, legacy preservation, mainstream music industry, Mexican-American culture, music business infrastructure, Tejano music golden age, Tejano music pioneers, untimely artist deaths
Introduction
Selena Quintanilla’s success story is often framed as a singular event, but J.D. Mata offers a broader perspective—one that situates her within a larger movement in Tejano music and the music industry as a whole. Mata outlines a twofold process that led to her rise: first, the golden age of Tejano music, where major record labels invested in the genre, and second, her strategic positioning for a crossover into mainstream American pop music. Tejano music was already spreading beyond Texas, thanks to migrant workers who carried its rhythms across the U.S.and to influential DJs who played a crucial role in amplifying the sound. Figures like Mando San Roman, Rock and Roll James, and Johnny Canales championed Selena’s music, giving her the exposure necessary to build a devoted fan base. Mata also highlights Nano Ramirez, a visionary promoter who recognized Tejano music’s commercial potential and provided critical platforms for artists like Selena to perform.
Beyond industry support, Selena’s family dynamic played an essential role. Her father, Abraham Quintanilla, was both a mentor and manager, shaping her career with a level of discipline and strategy that ensured longevity. Her band, composed primarily of family members, functioned as a tight-knit unit, reinforcing the sense of authenticity and cohesion that made her music resonate deeply with audiences. Mata draws an interesting parallel between Selena’s trajectory and that of Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine—both artists sought to expand Latin music’s footprint in mainstream American pop. However, Selena’s journey was tragically cut short, and her posthumous fame became a phenomenon in itself. The biopic film, Netflix series, and ongoing industry support helped sustain her legacy, making her one of the most celebrated Latin artists of all time.
A key takeaway from Mata’s analysis is the importance of infrastructure in preserving an artist’s legacy. Selena was already signed to major labels, and her father worked relentlessly to keep her name alive after her passing. These factors, combined with her extraordinary talent and the cultural significance of Tejano music, ensured that she remains not just a historical figure but a contemporary cultural icon. Ultimately, Mata presents Selena as both a product of her era and a timeless force in music. Her story encapsulates the Mexican-American Dream, the struggles and triumphs of breaking into a difficult industry, and the enduring appeal of authenticity in music.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: J.D. Mata
Section 1: The Tejano Music Phenomenon and Its Golden Age
A seasoned Musician (Vocals, Guitar and Piano), Filmmaker, and Actor, J.D. Mata has composed 100 songs and performed 100 shows and venues throughout. He has been a regular at the legendary “Whisky a Go Go,” where he has wooed audiences with his original shamanistic musical performances. He has written and directed nerous feature films, web series, and music videos. J.D. has also appeared in various national T.V. commercials and shows. Memorable appearances are TRUE BLOOD (HBO) as Tio Luca, THE UPS Store National television commercial, and the lead in the Lil Wayne music video, HOW TO LOVE, with over 129 million views. As a MOHAWK MEDICINE MAN, J.D. also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. J.D. co-starred, performed and wrote the music for the original world premiere play, AN ENEMY of the PUEBLO — by one of today’s preeminent Chicana writers, Josefina Lopez! This is J.D.’s third Fringe; last year, he wrote, directed and starred in the Fringe Encore Performance award-winning “A Night at the Chicano Rock Opera.” He is in season 2 of his NEW YouTube series, ROCK god! J.D. is a native of McAllen, Texas and resides in North Hollywood, California. Selena Quintanilla’s rise to fame was shaped by the golden age of Tejano music, industry support, and her extraordinary talent. This interview with J.D. Mata explores how major labels, influential DJs, and visionary promoters helped propel Selena from local performances to international stardom. Mata highlights her crossover ambitions, comparing her trajectory to Gloria Estefan’s, and examines how her tragic death cemented her legendary status. He also underscores the role of Abraham Quintanilla in preserving her legacy and how Tejano music remains relevant today, ensuring that Selena continues to inspire future generations of artists and fans worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s rare for someone to become famous early on due to musical talent. That’s unusual. It can happen at any age, but most people fail. For most, it only happens so early.
Selena, as far as I know, achieved success very early in what was then a non-mainstream musical genre, which she helped bring into the mainstream. So, what was your path to achieving that level of success? #NotMyIdea.
J.D. Mata: I love this because we have these discussions, and they come from my perspective. As an artist, my goal—whether as a filmmaker, musician, or actor—is to be authentic. If I stay true to myself when writing a scene or creating art, I want it to be something no one has ever seen. Often, when I’m authentic, it naturally comes out that way because there’s no one else like me.
It doesn’t matter whether people perceive my work as eccentric or crazy; it’s none of my business what others think of my art. I say this to preface our conversations because that’s the benchmark here—the jumping-off point. I’m sharing my insights with you in a way no one has done before, simply by being authentic. I’m not reiterating what’s already been put on the record but rather offering my genuine take on Selena, and that’s why I’m enjoying this so much. It also makes this series interesting—it’s almost like I’m a filmmaker creating a movie about Selena based on her real life and my perception. Does that make sense?
Section 2: Selena’s Early Years and Industry Breakthrough
Jacobsen: Yes. Now, back to the topic. How did Selena become so successful in an industry that wasn’t so big?
Mata: My take is that it was a twofold process. On one hand, as we’ve already discussed, the phenomenon of Tejano music occurred. It was inevitable. During that time, Tejano music was experiencing its golden age. It had just begun, and suddenly, major labels like EMI Latin and Capitol Records were signing Tejano artists, promoting them, and helping them achieve commercial success. Selena was part of this wave.
Why did this happen? Because Tejano’s music was fresh and new, it captured the imagination of Texas and beyond. It resonated with people across the U.S., especially those who danced to its rhythms. Many Tejano fans were Mexican Americans who migrated seasonally to work as farm labourers, picking crops like grapes, strawberries, and cotton. Even before Tejano music became a defined genre, artists performed at camps for these migrant workers nationwide. So, the seeds of Tejano music had already been sown across the U.S. Many migrants settled in Oregon, Washington, California, and Florida, where Tejano bands would later tour.
So, we had Tejano music come on board. It was a phenomenon. The big record labels recognized its potential and saw that it could generate significant revenue. Tejano artists were travelling all over the United States. Selena was part of this movement. Remember, as we mentioned, she and her family started their band when she was just a child.
From the time she could sing, around age 10, they were working hard. Eventually, they got signed by a major record label, likely in 1992 or 1993, during the golden age of Tejano music. It took her about ten years to become an “overnight success.” That was the birth of Selena’s stardom. This is part of what I mean by a twofold approach.
Selena rose to fame alongside other Tejano artists like Grupo Mazz and La Mafia. Anyone familiar with Tejano music will recognize these names. They were also giants in the genre, and Selena was a giant among them. However, Selena’s trajectory wasn’t to stay solely within Tejano music, even though she was and remains the Queen of Tejano.
Her path eventually led her from Tejano to the American pop market, which makes her story so interesting. I’ve never seen this angle fully explored, which is why this interview is so groundbreaking.
Selena’s record wasn’t just to dominate Tejano but to conquer it while preparing for a crossover. She was the Queen of Tejano music worldwide. I’m sorry, I was eating nuts earlier—I’ll stop now. Her ultimate goal was to break into the mainstream American market as Gloria Estefan did with the Miami Sound Machine. Selena was poised to become the next big crossover star, rubbing shoulders with Madonna and other icons in the American music industry.
But then, we all know what tragically happened. She was murdered, and that event, combined with her immense talent, solidified her legendary status as the Queen of Tejano. Her father’s grit, Abraham Quintanilla, played a significant role in preserving her legacy. It wasn’t driven by ambition or a thirst for fame but by his desire to ensure that Selena’s story and her dreams were honoured.
He knew that his daughter wanted to reach the next level, and he made it his mission to take her there, even after her death, by telling her story accurately and honestly. What ultimately catapulted Selena to the next level was a combination of her exceptional talent as a Tejano artist and the unfortunate tragedy of her death. The interest generated by her passing and the biopic film that followed introduced her to an even wider audience.
People saw her talent, success story, and how she embodied the American Dream—specifically, the Mexican-American Dream. Today, Tejano music is not as prominent as it once was, but Selena remains its ambassador. While people continue to be fascinated by Selena herself, they often overlook the brilliance of Tejano music, which is still beautiful and vibrant.
Another important factor contributing to her posthumous success was the existing infrastructure. Major record labels had signed her before her death, and that foundation allowed her legacy to reach new heights even after her passing. The infrastructure and her father’s dedication ensured that Selena’s story and music would continue to resonate with fans worldwide.
Section 3: The Power of Key Influencers: DJs and Promoters
Jacobsen: So, there was already a vehicle in place, through movies and other mediums, for her name and legacy to carry on. Another important point I’d like to explore here is giving credit to the DJs in Texas. Mando San Roman, for instance. He was an incredible DJ who recognized the greatness of Selena and played her music. At that time, DJs had more freedom in deciding whose music they would play. He was instrumental in promoting her. He doesn’t get enough credit for that.
Another phenomenal DJ was Rock and Roll James. He conducted some of the most iconic interviews with Selena. He had a show called Puro Tejano, and if you go to YouTube, you’ll find some wonderful clips of him and Selena. They had a great rapport, a real back-and-forth banter that connected Selena with the Tejano audience.
What about Johnny Canales?
Mata: Yes, Johnny Canales is another one I have to mention. He also played a key role. His show, The Johnny Canales Show, was essential in bringing Tejano artists, including Selena, to a broader audience. He generously showcased her talent, and that exposure was crucial to her career trajectory.
Mando San Roman, Rock and Roll James, and Johnny Canales were part of the bigger puzzle leading to her worldwide fame. There was a progression: point A, to B, to C, and so on. Point Z is where Selena stands today as an iconic figure recognized globally. But people must understand that you must start at point A to reach point Z.
Section 4: Selena’s Crossover Ambitions and Legacy
Jacobsen: It sounds like these DJs were not just promoters but artists themselves.
Mata: Mando San Roman and Rock and Roll James were singers and composers. They knew talent when they saw it, and they knew how to nurture it—big kudos to them for recognizing Selena’s potential early on. Unfortunately, Johnny Canales recently passed away—may he rest in peace—but his contribution to Selena’s career and Tejano music was enormous. He helped bring her to the masses.
Folks were able to see her talent. To build a house, you must build it on a solid foundation. The foundation for Selena’s trajectory was, first and foremost, her immense talent. Second, she had a father who was brilliant as a musician and a manager who deeply loved his daughter. She had a great band, too.
The band was tight—it was her family. The two members who weren’t family were treated like they were. It’s so important to have a united band, and hers was. This was all part of a house built on rock, not sand.
Then, she had key advocates like Mando San Roman, Rock and Roll James, and Johnny Canales. That was the genesis of Selena—the phenomenon we know now. That was the foundation that led to her success. So, that’s my answer to your question. Are there any more honourable mentions?
Section 5: The Lasting Impact of Selena and Tejano Music
Jacobsen: That wraps up the session format, right?
Mata: Yes. We’ve covered some important stuff. There are a few more honourable mentions. It was like catching lightning in a bottle—a perfect storm. Everything had to align perfectly. And, of course, we also talked about the movie. There was conflict between her father and her husband, Chris Pérez, which generated a lot of intrigue and interest. She was married to her guitarist, and their love story—eloping and all—added depth to the narrative. Rumours and typical storylines emerged, with protagonists and antagonists, even after her death, like in any interesting story.
The conflict between her father and husband added further intrigue, making the story compelling. Another honourable mention is Netflix’s production of Selena: The Series. By doing that, they helped prolong her legacy, keeping her a worldwide phenomenon.
Before I wrap up, let me mention one more honourable mention: Nano Ramirez. I’m glad you reminded me to mention him. Nano Ramirez was a visionary in the Tejano music scene. Let me spell it out: N-A-N-O, Ramirez, R-A-M-I-R-E-Z. He deserves a ton of credit. He owned a convention center and had the vision to showcase Tejano artists, including Selena, at a time when South Texas was very conservative.
He just released a book, and I recommend anyone interested in Tejano music to look him up and read his story. He’s a historic figure. Not only did he showcase Tejano music, but he also brought rock bands like AC/DC to his venue in McAllen, Texas. He had a brilliant entrepreneurial mind, living the American Dream, and he, too, recognized Selena’s talent early on.
He would promote her at his venue, and people from all over the Rio Grande Valley would come to see her. So, major props to Nano Ramirez, another key figure in Selena’s story. A part of the house is built on rock, which is Selena’s story.
Mata: Excellent. Thanks so much.
Jacobsen: Thank you, bro.
Discussion
J.D. Mata’s interview provides a profound exploration of the cultural, artistic, and business dimensions of Tejano music. His reflections highlight how the genre is not just a style of music but a deeply embedded cultural expression shaped by historical influences and modern adaptations. Mata underscores the significance of authenticity, emphasizing the unique instrumentation and lyrical themes that define Tejano. His perspective as both a pioneer and performer offers an insider’s view of how the genre evolved from its early days, incorporating synthesizers and redefining traditional sounds.
Beyond the music itself, Mata’s discussion reveals the realities of the entertainment industry, illustrating the parallels between his experiences in Tejano music and his later work in acting and filmmaking. He articulates the importance of stage presence, audience engagement, and the business acumen necessary to sustain a career in music. His insights into financial planning, logistics, and leadership within a band demonstrate the complexities behind live performances and event planning—skills that translated seamlessly into his other creative endeavors.
A key theme throughout the conversation is the role of intuition in navigating the industry. Mata describes his ability to discern genuine opportunities from empty promises, a skill he honed during his time in the Tejano scene and later applied in Hollywood. His reflections on authenticity extend beyond music to evaluating people and projects, reinforcing the importance of integrity in an industry that often prioritizes image over substance.
The discussion also touches on the broader impact of Tejano music as a cultural force. Mata positions it within the larger narrative of American music history, recognizing its contributions to the diverse musical landscape of the United States. His acknowledgment of figures like Selena reinforces the idea that Tejano music transcends borders, influencing artists and audiences worldwide.
Ultimately, Mata’s journey serves as a testament to the enduring power of Tejano music. His experiences highlight the dedication required to shape and sustain a genre while adapting to new artistic landscapes. By blending tradition with innovation, Mata continues to champion Tejano’s legacy, ensuring its influence remains strong for future generations of musicians and storytellers.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Four Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 13
Issue Numbering: 2
Section: E
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 33
Formal Sub-Theme: Tejano Music
Individual Publication Date: March 8, 2025
Issue Publication Date: April 1, 2025
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 2,134
Image Credits: J.D. Mata
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Randy Economy for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy. March 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, March 8). On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (March 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. On Tejano Music 7: Selena Quintanilla’s Rise: Tejano Music, Industry Support, and Cultural Legacy [Internet]. 2025 Mar;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tejano-music-7
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Mubarak Bala, a humanist in Nigeria, was recently released from prison for what amounts to charges of blasphemy. In an interview with Canadian humanist Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Balareflects on his unjust detention, emphasizing that freedom of expression and belief are crucial for justice and progress. He describes Nigeria’s escalating religious extremism, persecution of humanists, and threats to secularism. Bala highlights the global need to abolish blasphemy laws and the challenges humanists face, particularly in their struggle to stay alive. He advocates for political action, media reform, and international lobbying to promote secularism. Bala plans to run for Nigeria’s presidency in 2031. He expresses joy at reuniting with his family while condemning systemic injustice. His resilience underscores the importance of safeguarding human rights and free thought worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has (unjust) experience shaped your views on the importance of freedom of expression and belief in fostering a just society?
Mubarak Bala: Well, even before my unfair abduction and kidnapping, I have always known that the world I live in is not free; it is a world full of cruelty and menace to freedom and innovation; this is why it took millennia to manage life as it came, while societies that allowed that singular civil right, flourished and prospered, which seeped through time and ushered in the modern science and free inquiry that we enjoy today, which ultimately changed the destiny of our species and planet.
The fact that I was abducted only confirmed to me and folks that it is a long way to go for many countries and many societies, but whereas some sane cultures have already made it unfair and illegal to disallow free thought and free beliefs, others have chosen the path to cruelty, perversion, persecution, poverty and unnecessary harm to life.
This is glaring and evident in my immediate society, the north of Nigeria, where we’re most unsafe, from local governments agitating and mongering for the Shari’a and Jihadism. Sadly, the Federal Forces are on the dangerous pathway to expand this nationwide, jettisoning the secular federal constitution, albeit without a constitutional amendment or a national referendum.
Free thought is super important; free speech is the beginning of fairness and justice and any meaningful social cohesion of all members of any nation or society or conglomerates of nations such as Nigeria. It is these values that would shape our future and preserve the fragile peace, thereby perpetuating the country; otherwise, it would spiral down the blackhole of anarchy and civil war; sadly, we’ve been on that trajectory for two decades now, and it seems no one sees the path, none but few, such as I.
The Islamists brought us sharia, and then gradually, they brought us jihadism and jihadists, who are activists for the Shari’a. This bred terrorism and banditry, which is threatening to consume all of us. They seek to silence dissent and voices of reason, they seek to dominate, they seek to appease jihadists and their paymasters, they seek to appease non-existent gods and deities, and they are ready to murder for the glory of cultures far away, both in time and in mileage. They do this, and the world could only write, nothing much could be done, because, the world confuses Muslimophobia with Islamophobia, the two are distinct and can be understood by any rational person.
Now, there must be peace in the world. That peace cannot manifest without freedoms for women, thinkers, and all members of the community or society, and justice for the fringe members of any community, be they minorities by tribe, race, religion, sect, or social standing/class. The pathway is simple. However, it takes only courageous governments, politicians, policymakers, international bodies and actors, and the direct victims themselves to these tragedies.
Jacobsen: What challenges for humanists in Nigeria seem the most significant in online and offline spaces now?
Bala: Challenges for humanists at the moment are vast and numerous, intricate and intertwining cascades of cards and mazes. Sadly, we can’t solve any of them while dead, and since we’re actively being sought to be murdered by lone actors, by our governments, by vigilante and sharia police, then we can’t and haven’t started solving any of these problems with all the attention, resources and energy we could, because we’re busy trying not to die. It’s that simple. We are battling daily challenges to stay alive, then probably seek other fairness and justice as well for our members and the fringe, especially those made illegal by the governments for populism.
You may notice that over the decade or more, I suffered incarcerations, death threats, and attempted lobotomy; no one else has ever been arrested or punished by my tormentors and bullies, no one. Many of them have already murdered our kind, or Christians and minority sects, but the governors pay compensation to the victim’s families and set the culprits free.
Jacobsen: Why do you believe freedom of expression is a cornerstone of humanism?
Bala: The cornerstone for humanism is remaining alive. Everything else comes second. Therefore, freedom of speech, thought, or belief is second to that, at least in Nigeria.
So, perhaps freedom of expression is the cornerstone of humanism in the West, but in our climes, the right to life after changing beliefs is our paramount cornerstone or priority.
Jacobsen: What lessons can be drawn from imprisonment in restrictive environments? What is the role of humanist organizations in defending freedom of expression?
Bala: Lessons that can be drawn from imprisonment in restrictive environments:
Living another day, and never dying is one thing, but also,
Utilize the idle time to expand your knowledge and
Try and keep your sanity and health, especially your mental and physical health. They try to engage you spiritually, but you know that is all crap since it’s about mythology and illogical dialogues, so you skip that. Instead, you exercise and eat well, that’s if you can find the food, though.
I also learnt that in our environment, prison is only for the lower class, the poor and, the sick and the old; no rich person stays in prison for long. Many resources go via envelopes under the table, justice is for sale.
Most importantly, stand your ground. I was converted to my former religion by force, but the moment I had access to a lawyer, I refused to bow down again.
I also learnt that family is important, and not all you thought were family are. You may be born of the same womb, of the same woman or loins, but your actual siblings may be oceans away from you, connected by the internet, by humanity, and by the philosophy that all born must live free and that there is no limit to the resources and time that they could expend to see you free, to see justice done.
Jacobsen: How can we protect other cases of humanists at risk, e.g., Ahmadreza Djalali, Andrea Gilbert, Asaduzzaman Noor, Ashraf Fayadh, Atheists in Kenya Society, George Gavriel, Gáspár Békés, Gulalai Ismail, Indika Rathnayaka, Leena Manimekalai, Leo Igwe, Mahmoud Jama Ahmed, Mohamed Hisham, Mohamed Rusthum Mujuthaba, Mohammed Ould Shaikh Ould Mkhaitir, Mommad, M.M. Kalburgi, Narendra Dabholkar, Narendra Nayak, Panayote Dimitras, Raif Badawi, Rishvin Ismath, Saïd Djabelkhir, Shakthika Sathkumara, and Soheil Arabi?
Bala: We could protect humanists at risk by ending intolerance, meaning editing out inedible texts called or deemed holy. These are what leads to the murders or the government torment of individuals and families. They do this because they believe they are obeying some deity, that they’re the good people and you’re the bad.
The difference between terrorists and criminals is that criminals know they’re wrong and are feeling the guilt, one way or another. Terrorists have a clear conscience and believe that no matter what pain or blood they spill, they’re doing the right thing and that they’re the victims if they are allowed to carry out these atrocities.
Jacobsen: How will this Nigerian case impact the global conversation about blasphemy laws or quasi-blasphemy legal contexts?
Bala: I believe that we could at least say the West now received a nudge, a prod, or a small jolt to end all blasphemy laws and find a way to sanction countries that mete these atrocities on their citizens. Mind you, it’s not just my case. At least I didn’t die. Count the many that didn’t make it, be it in Iran, Arabia, Somalia, Malaysia, or Afghanistan. I should say I’m lucky, but we must end blasphemy laws around the world, then go on and end the Shari’a, as it has no place in modern societies. You guys confuse the fanatics that there must be freedom of religion and belief globally, and so, they also think that since their dogma is also part of the world religions, their ‘peace’ must be global. This means they have the right to misogyny and patriarchy; they have the right to kill nonbelievers; they also feel that it is their right, right of belief, to keep women locked up.
Jacobsen: How can international humanist movements effectively challenge laws and practices?
Bala: The international humanist community could lobby where there are democracies, coalesce where there are no freedoms, to form alliances and communities to protect themselves.
We must also join politics, effect change, and bring about secularism in governance. I, for one, will run for president in Nigeria in 2031 and radically change my country, which is on a dangerous trajectory.
I have already had about half a decade to work out my plans. Now, it’s time to start the action. I’ll leave my country for a while, then strategize and seek resources and partners and pressure my country to start asking the right questions, the national question, have a referendum and a new constitution; then we’ll see which direction to go: allow Talibanistan to go and form their country? Or join Nigeria in actual progress?
Jacobsen: What is the balance between respecting religious beliefs and protecting the right to question or critique those beliefs?
Bala: Balance between respecting religious beliefs and protecting rights to question…
In all sincerity, there is nothing about respecting faith and dogma and indoctrination or misogyny and terrorism; I cannot respect the Shari’a nor the Jihad, and never the book that asked man to murder man. There’s no two ways about it. I already mentioned earlier that Muslimophobia is wrong, while Islamophobia is legit and must be encouraged. Simple.
Jacobsen: What strategies are most effective for promoting humanism and secularism?
Bala: Strategies for promoting humanism by activism, speaking, networking, and forming communities where we protect ourselves.
Jacobsen: What is the future of humanism and freedom of expression in Nigeria?
Bala: At the moment, I’d say it’s doomed. This is why I have to leave, strategize and return; I have plans to start a Media House focused on Nigeria, West Africa, the Sahel Belt, and sub-Saharan Africa, in all languages involved, because the mainstream media assigned these jobs have failed us, failed miserably…
Jacobsen: How is your wife and family? How is it to see your kids again?
Bala: My wife and child are fine and healthy. We’re slowly reconnecting and recovering and counting our losses and hoping that this is the last time I suffer this misadventure orchestrated by my family and government. Seeing my kid again balanced out all the losses I incurred all this while.
Jacobsen: What were Leo Igwe’s first words?
Bala: The first call I received from the police custody in Kaduna was Leo’s call, but before I could discuss anything with him, the phone was seized; even though other inmates were allowed contact with family, legal services and associates — but not I, not for almost a year. And a further year before, I saw the courtroom. While rapists and murderers and terrorists were going for trials, getting bail, acquittals and even accolades showered on them, I was slowly dying and maligned in the hope that I acquiesced, but I didn’t. Never would. Never will.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for the opportunity and your time, Mubarak. We finally got that interview!
Wonderful Mkhutche is Humanists Malawi’s Executive Director. He spoke with Canadian humanist and writer Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Wonderful Mkhutche. We’re going to discuss humanism in Malawi, and we’ll also touch on witchcraft allegations. For an American humanist audience, Malawi may not come up as frequently as Canada might. To start, what is the relevance of humanism in a Malawian context?
Wonderful Mkhutche: Humanism is especially significant here among the small community of humanists. Humanism in Malawi is about challenging societal mindsets largely shaped by dominant Christian and Muslim beliefs.
Together, Christianity and Islam constitute about 90% of the population, alongside other beliefs such as traditional African religions and, to a lesser extent, Hinduism. Generally, Malawian society is deeply religious. As a humanist and someone who has been religious for most of my life, I have observed how religion has hindered social progress. My journey to humanism was fueled by a frustration with the limitations imposed by religious beliefs — the kind of restrictions that curb free thought. Any attempt to think outside these norms is often seen as rebellious and needing correction. Humanism, for me, was a way to break free from these boundaries.
Over the past ten years, I have been involved in humanism and have experienced growth in my social and moral awareness. This growth has extended beyond me; it has positively affected those around me, including family and friends, who have begun to question certain views on religion because of the changes they’ve seen in me. Humanism offers a path towards a more open-minded and progressive society in the larger Malawian context.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding witchcraft allegations, how common are they? And how does humanism, with its emphasis on science, empiricism, and skepticism, provide a basis to counter these beliefs, which are often rooted in superstition?
Mkhutche: Three-quarters of the population believes in witchcraft, and this belief impacts daily life in Malawi. Although witchcraft beliefs don’t always result in daily violence, people often blame illnesses, deaths, or misfortunes like job loss on witchcraft. These beliefs are primarily grounded in two foundations. First, there is a religious basis: as I mentioned, most Malawians are Christians or Muslims, and both the Bible and the Quran reference witchcraft. Rejecting witchcraft outright can feel like contradicting one’s faith. Secondly, there is a cultural foundation rooted in African spirituality and cosmology, where belief in witchcraft is widely accepted.
Humanism addresses these beliefs by challenging both religious and traditional foundations. In Malawi, humanism is unique in its approach to combating witchcraft beliefs because it promotes rational thinking and empirical evidence — offering a perspective that few others in society address.
Mkhutche: Other people may acknowledge that witchcraft exists, but they don’t believe we should be fighting or killing each other because of it. However, as humanists, we aim to eliminate the belief in witchcraft. We say witchcraft doesn’t exist, in the hope that, as people stop believing in it, the “virus” of superstition will also disappear from our society. That’s the unique approach humanism offers in addressing witchcraft. It’s the best way forward because we can’t allow people to believe in witchcraft and then expect them not to engage in violence because of that belief.
The best solution is to remove the belief, eliminating the associated harm.
Jacobsen: And what about individuals who were once Christian or Muslim, who believed in witches and witchcraft, and then came to be humanists like yourself? How do they describe their transformation away from superstition?
Mkhutche: Most people who shift away from that belief are Christians. We rarely see Muslims doing so, as Islam is a minority religion here. At times, Islam even has a soft spot for us humanists because there’s a form of Christian nationalism in Malawi, where Christians try to dominate society. Since Muslims can’t openly challenge this, humanism provides a voice against religious dominance. So when we speak against Christian nationalist tendencies, Muslims sometimes view us favorably.
However, the Christians who change their minds are few, as religious indoctrination is deep-rooted. Those who do shift often say, “I realize now that witchcraft wasn’t real; it was just a narrative implanted in me to explain social issues for which I didn’t have answers.” After that, they may join us in social media debates whenever we challenge beliefs in witchcraft. This transformation is something we see often. People who passionately argued with me five years ago now admit that we, as humanists, were right all along. They come out openly, acknowledging that they’ve changed their minds, though it takes time.
Jacobsen: What about public figures? Are there any celebrities, politicians, or public intellectuals in Malawi who promote humanism or humanistic values?
Mkhutche: No, that would be a dangerous stance to take. In Malawian society, openly denying witchcraft’s existence is risky. For example, if a musician or celebrity were to say witchcraft isn’t real, some people might stop supporting their work. I know some directors who agree with me that witchcraft doesn’t exist, but they lack the courage to speak publicly about it. Even for me, it hasn’t been easy. There’s a risk of losing economic opportunities simply for holding views that go against societal norms. This has been the case up until two or three years ago.
Right now, I see society beginning to open up. It’s creating space for some of us who are open to saying that witchcraft doesn’t exist. For example, the media often calls us whenever an event occurs, looking for our perspective. When I attend certain social events, and people recognize my name, that’s the first thing they mention.
They’ll say, “Yes, you’re the one who says witchcraft doesn’t exist. Tell me more.” So, the social space is gradually opening up, allowing me to voice my views. People may disagree with us, but they are willing to listen, even though these beliefs have been ingrained since birth. It would be even better if famous people were to speak openly about this issue.
This is why I’m motivated to climb as far as I can on the social ladder, to use whatever influence I may have to tell people that witchcraft isn’t real. I’ve seen how impactful that influence can be. Wherever I go, I represent that message. When people see me, they associate me with the message that witchcraft doesn’t exist. It works.
Jacobsen: What efforts are you making for humanism in Malawi and through organizations like Advocacy for Alleged Witches? How do you engage communities, villages, cities, and organizations with humanist principles to combat witchcraft allegations in Malawi?
Mkhutche: We have several approaches. The first is responding whenever there is a witchcraft-related case. In recent months, we haven’t had any cases of violence specifically due to witchcraft beliefs, though the narrative persists daily. However, whenever such a situation does arise, we see how we can respond — whether by reaching out to the traditional leaders in the area, speaking with the victims, or alerting the police, as we may not always be able to intervene directly. Even within our humanist community, not everyone wants to be on the front lines. Some prefer to keep their association with humanism discreet, even if they are critical of witchcraft or believe in God. So, although they are humanists, we can’t always rely on them for certain tasks.
For instance, when a media opportunity arises to discuss these issues, I may post in our group asking who is available, but only some respond, simply because they are afraid.
The second approach is media interviews. They are incredibly effective in spreading the message.
I recall a program on national radio where they invited me to share my views on witchcraft and the existence of God in a thirty-minute segment. They continue to rebroadcast that program, and I often receive feedback — people calling to hear more about certain topics. Some people already doubted the existence of witchcraft, so when they hear me say it doesn’t exist, they feel relieved, like they’ve finally found someone who thinks the same way. They reach out to connect with me.
At the University of Malawi, we also hold debates for students about various aspects of witchcraft and its impact on Malawian society. Events like these don’t start and end on campus; we invite journalists to cover them, and sometimes, we record these debates so they’re available online. We aim to use every possible opportunity to spread our message.
Jacobsen: One last question — something particularly relevant to humanists in the Global South compared to those in the Global North. In regions where safety, security, and privacy might be greater concerns, with law enforcement perhaps less accessible or social repercussions more severe, what risks should anyone in Malawi consider before coming out as a humanist? How might this offer a humbling perspective for others whose societies may not have these specific challenges, even though they face their issues?
Mkhutche: The risks of coming out as a humanist in Malawi are considerable. The first major risk is the loss of economic opportunities. It can be challenging to secure a contract or even employment if people know you don’t believe in witchcraft or, even more so, in God.
There’s also the risk of social isolation. I’ve seen cases where individuals’ families stop supporting them financially, whether for school fees or business opportunities because they’ve heard that person denies the existence of witchcraft or God. It’s a form of punishment for thinking differently. We have several cases like this.
Even in my experience, leaving religion didn’t immediately impact my economic situation, but I noticed some family members and friends began to distance themselves. I lost several friends, although I’ve reconnected with some over time. Others still won’t talk to me and say they’ll only reconnect the day I return to religion.
They were good friends then, but we’re no longer on good terms now. Those are some of the risks we face here.
When you compare this to the Global North, the situation is different because you live in societies where many people may align with your views. Here, however, in a country of 20 million people, imagine 19.5 million believing one thing and just a few of us holding a different perspective. It’s a significant challenge.
These issues keep arising, and you also asked about women and humanism. We don’t see many women coming forward — not because they aren’t there — they are. They speak about humanism privately, but publicly, they’re afraid. If a woman openly says she’s a humanist, very few men outside of other humanists would be willing to date or marry her. Many people here expect women to be religious, so women fear social isolation if they openly embrace humanism.
This interview will be for a flagship publication for American humanists, which will provide good exposure regarding our work on witchcraft allegations and advocacy in Malawi.
Candace Gorham is the President of the American Humanist Association. She spoke with Canadian humanist and journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen for a recent interview.
Gorham is a licensed mental health counsellor and author of The Ebony Exodus Project: Why Some Black Women Are Walking Out on Religion–and Others Should Too and On Death, Dying, and Disbelief. She is a former ordained minister turned atheist activist, researcher, and writer on religion, secular social justice, and the African-American community. She is also a member of the Secular Therapist Project and The Clergy Project.
Gorham discussed the state of humanism post-election, particularly within African American communities. She discussed the general tone of distress among humanists due to Trump’s popular vote win and its implications for America. She emphasized the need for proactive activism, combating Christian Nationalism, and supporting affected communities. Gorham highlighted the unfamiliarity with humanism among Black communities and the opportunity for growth by reaching out and supporting those leaving religion but seeking meaning. She also noted the potential challenges with misinformation and the popularity of alternative beliefs like astrology and crystals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today [Editor’s Note: this interview took place in November 2024], Candace Gorham joins us to discuss various aspects of humanism in the immediate aftermath of the American election. The Republicans appear to have won significantly, which is concerning for many humanists, given their policies and the people within their circles.
Over the past few days, what is the general tone and feeling within American humanist communities based on what you are observing?
Candace Gorham: I would start with my immediate circle of friends and family. Many people are troubled, and there is a palpable sense of despair. I met with some staff today, and confusion and distress were evident. People are puzzled by how former President Trump managed to win again despite being considered offensive by many. The most unsettling aspect for many is that he won the popular vote this time, which has left people questioning their neighbors’ and friends’ beliefs.
Previously, when Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, it was easier to rationalize it as a quirk of the system. However, this time, there has been talk of a “red wave” and the unexpected loss of many Democratic strongholds. As I mentioned, people are mostly disturbed about what this signifies for the United States today. What does this say about the country we live in? It is distressing.
Jacobsen: Political activism, policy advocacy, and related efforts are also questioned. What is your approach to addressing this situation from a proactive, activist perspective for the American Humanist Association?
Gorham: Many members of our organization are eager to fight and engage in policy work, advocacy, and volunteerism. From our staff to our chapters and affiliates, individuals are ready to stand up and contribute to meaningful efforts. We are currently working on determining how we can best support them.
When I say “we,” I am referring to leadership, as we focus on finding ways to support our members and anyone seeking our assistance. How can we provide support in this moment of shock and despair? Furthermore, what can we do moving forward when it is time to engage in sustained activism? We have the staff capable of leading that charge, especially with our new Executive Director Fish Stark.
Jacobsen: Some issues will be more immediately relevant when targeting different areas for this work. Where do you see the most immediate impacts for humanist communities? Will it be focused on reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ rights? Or will it focus more on direct church-state separation and related issues?
Gorham: Yes, I would say that we need to find that balance again because so many people — women, LGBTQ+ individuals, men who support women’s rights — are affected and hurting in their everyday lives. As an organization, the AHA wants to craft a way to support people in dealing with their feelings of angst. At the same time, we want to provide a space for them to channel some of that energy. One of the significant focuses — without putting words in our Executive Director’s mouth — is fighting against Christian Nationalism.
Jacobsen: So, is that where we will see more of the work being done — focusing on church-state separation and combating White Christian Nationalism that has become pervasive and is part of why we are where we are today?
Gorham: Yes, that will be a major focus moving forward.
Jacobsen: As a licensed mental health counsellor, what would you recommend for young people who are experiencing their first major political shocks to consider for maintaining their mental health while potentially using that energy to become more proactive rather than staying in despair?
Gorham: Yes, I will share what I’ve been reminding myself today. The United States has been through ugly, dark times — nasty and frightening. Yet, we have survived and, in many cases, strengthened and improved. I keep telling myself that the institutions built over time — our Constitution, our organizations, and the structures that uphold American ideals — have been battered, bruised, and tested before. I am hopeful that they will hold once again because they have withstood challenges in the past. I encourage people to remember that we have weathered dark times before and emerged stronger, continuing to move forward and improve.
On a more personal note, I advise people to do what I did last night: have my daughter come over and spend time with friends, family, and support groups. Engage in activities that keep you connected and away from being alone, watching cable news, or endlessly scrolling through TikTok and feeling more overwhelmed. Surrounding yourself with supportive people or those who want to take action and who want to be involved in activism is essential. Whether it’s volunteer work or attending a march (and I am sure there will be many in the months to come), finding ways to channel anxiety and frustration can make a significant difference. It may help you feel more empowered and better able to cope.
Engage in activities; don’t just watch what is being discussed or happening passively. Participate in some way, even if it’s something as small as getting together with friends for a book club or similar activities. Or, if you feel up to it, do activist work, get out there on the streets, canvass, knock on doors, and do whatever you can.
Jacobsen: You wrote The Ebony Exodus Project — it’s been eleven/twelve years. So, what is the current status of what we can call The Ebony Exodus Project?
Gorham: In general, the number of Black women who identify as spiritual, religious, or Christian is still high, especially if we include not just Christianity but spirituality and belief in a divine entity or supernatural beliefs. At the time I wrote The Ebony Exodus Project, about 86% of Black women in America identified as Christians. From what I recall from the most recent Pew report I read, even though it’s a few years old, those numbers are still in the 80% range.
Anecdotally, from my experience as a Black woman in the Black community and from conversations with other women I know, there is a shift happening, particularly among younger women — by younger, I mean fifty and under. These women are moving away from organized religion and are creating their spiritual meanings and practices. One of the things I find interesting is that even among non-believers or those who consider themselves atheists, there is an increasing belief in horoscopes and crystals.
This trend, which I consider somewhat supernatural, is what I am seeing everywhere, and it distresses me even more than the Christianity I left behind. At least with Christianity, there were tangible aspects you could challenge, like the Bible or scientific claims. But how do you challenge horoscopes or crystals? Suppose someone believes that a crystal on their forehead will cure a headache. In that case, engaging them in critical thinking becomes more challenging.
I even have family members who, for lack of a better term, I describe as “woo-woo.” They are into crystals, horoscopes, and similar things. I always push back and ask, “Have you read anything about this beyond a TikTok video? Have you considered opinions from someone who doesn’t believe that horoscopes are real?”
And many people, and this ties back to the election, face the issue of disinformation and misinformation in America and probably worldwide. People get their news from social media in little one- to three-minute sound bites, memes, and similar formats. They need to get a complete picture of what is happening around them. This is also true when it comes to religion and supernatural beliefs.
Jacobsen: What about the state of humanism generally within an African American context? Is there increasing comfort and space for individuals coming out of the Black church? Or is it a repetition of past community mistakes, where there isn’t an open, authentic space for people to bring their cultural narratives and individual stories into a humanist space, leaving behind religion while taking on humanist values in the context of their subculture within the United States?
Gorham: I would say that a significant portion of the Black community is still largely unfamiliar with humanism and humanist thought. I remember when I was younger, in college, learning about humanism in the context of 17th and 18th-century writers who discussed it. At that time, I thought, “Oh, humanism. This isn’t Christian. This is the belief that we only have each other and must do good among ourselves.” It wasn’t considered a Christian way of thinking, so the term “humanism” was, and to some still is, a dirty word.
It’s almost synonymous with atheism for some people. Humanism is still a “dirty word” for those who know what it means, while the vast majority probably don’t even know the term. I believe this area has growth potential — how we reach out to more diverse communities that may have never heard of humanism. When I first got into the movement and wrote The Ebony Exodus Project twelve years ago, I often heard Black people say, “I never even heard the word atheist.” They didn’t know what it meant. Humanism is even less known. When I tell people, “Yes, I’m an atheist, but I’m also a humanist, and my humanism informs my ethics,” I often get, “Well, what’s that?”
People are starting to become more familiar with the term “atheist” or “non-believer,” but “humanist” is still not widely recognized. This is a major opportunity for our organization. Even those who believe in horoscopes and crystals still want a moral compass to guide them in understanding good, bad, right, or wrong. They may turn to astrology because they crave something that helps them build meaning.
When the American Humanist Association finds a way to communicate with these individuals effectively, it will be a significant breakthrough and a valuable resource. Many in the Black community are moving away from structured religion but are still seeking something to fill that void. That’s where we can step in and start to provide that support.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Regarding culturally identifiable figures, there are you, Ayanna Watson, Mandisa Thomas, Sikivu Hutchinson, and Debbie Goddard. There aren’t too many individuals who are necessarily recognizable as Black women humanists. It’s improving in terms of having leading voices, but to your point, incorporating more is necessary. Do you have any upcoming literary works or activities that people should be on the lookout for?
Gorham: As the new president, I’m trying to get my bearings with the organization. I’m new, and we have a new Executive Director. Much work needs to be done to get things rolling again. I’m not currently focusing on anything outside of that. I do have some book ideas percolating in the background. Still, I have yet to start on any of them because my current focus is supporting our new Executive Director and helping achieve some of his goals.
Jacobsen: Candace, thank you for your time and the opportunity to talk.
Gerardo Rivera is an atheist, humanist, and an agronomist. He earned an MS in Plant Biology. Rivera discusses guidance for young Puerto Rican humanists, emphasizing balance in activism and sustainability in life goals.
In an interview with Canadian humanist Scott Jacobsen, Rivera highlights the importance of maintaining personal well-being while pursuing activism, as it helps sustain long-term commitment to causes. He also underscores the role of generational stewardship, encouraging mentorship and financial support to foster younger activists’ growth and exposure to diverse experiences. Rivera reflects on the enriching value of engaging with international humanism perspectives and urges experienced activists to give back by mentoring and supporting upcoming generations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s topic is advice for young Puerto Rican humanists. What should they keep in mind, and what are some important examples?
Gerardo Rivera: Great. My name is Gerardo Rivera, and I am from Puerto Rico. I’m twenty-six years old. We’ll be discussing balance and what young Puerto Rican humanists should consider.
We were talking about how activism goes through phases, much like life. I was sharing advice based on my own experiences. Often, as activists, regardless of our specific field, it’s easy to forget that we’re only as effective as our ability to maintain balance in our lives. Ultimately, if we’re not emotionally and physically well, sustaining the work we care about becomes impossible. Activism relies on us being in a healthy, stable place.
For those passionate about a cause, I advise dedicating as much time as you can — but not at the expense of your well-being. Many people start activism when they’re young, which can become a lifelong journey that’s hard to step away from. Beginning young can sometimes lead to losing track of other important goals, like advancing your career, continuing your education, or achieving economic stability. If you’re not in a good place personally, sustaining your activism long-term will be difficult, if not impossible.
So, it’s essential to recognize your passion and commitment to an important cause. However, it’s equally important to plan for the long term. Ask yourself: How can I build a life that balances my need for happiness and stability with my passion for activism? This kind of planning is crucial.
Remember that activism, politics, and social movements rely on sustainable generational stewardship. Ensure that someone is ready to continue after you because, as humans, we won’t be able to fight the fight forever. Activism isn’t always purely organized; it often involves individual actions. It’s essential to bring others in, help them find their place, and support their growth in activism. Building sustainable organizations or movements is vital because our time here is limited.
If you’re in a position where you’ve had the privilege of being an activist and are now more economically stable but still passionate, take someone under your wing. I’ve had mentors in humanism and activism, including my dear friend Eva, who constantly advises me and is one of my best friends. If you can mentor someone, regardless of their age, it’s a powerful way to support the next generation. I’m doing this in my own life and through academia. For example, I’m setting up scholarships for people who want to study what I studied. This is how we can responsibly support the future of activism.
So that’s one way we can give back. It’s similar to activism — you should try to give back so someone can continue the fight when you no longer can. The rights of future generations will depend on what we can protect today. That’s a lesson I’ve learned recently. My life has changed so much, and it’s become clear, especially with these changes, that life is unpredictable, even if you plan.
Destiny, though I believe in a deterministic view of the world, is very unpredictable. So, the more we can create a network of people who can carry on the fight after us, the better. Even if you cannot donate, find other ways to support. Visit your local college and reignite that club you once belonged to that may no longer be active or has dwindled in numbers. For example, when I was in college, we had alumni — some without children attending — who would come back and ask, “What does the club need? How can we help, whether planning, donating, or volunteering?” They would help us with all kinds of things.
If you’re in a stable position, donate your time, lend a hand, or support groups that may not have the same privileges. That’s one meaningful way we can give back, and that’s all I have to say about it.
Jacobsen: There’s something of a “Taylor Swift era” vibe in life. Not every moment needs to be about being a ‘boss babe’ or a ‘boss boy,’ right?
Rivera: Totally!
Jacobsen: There are times when you’re working hard in Missouri, saving up for a place, and others when you’re in Copenhagen, chatting with a Canadian over coffee.
Rivera: And then there are times like a year and a half ago — before I was in Copenhagen — where I was in the streets of San Juan, Puerto Rico, at midnight, running from the police during a demonstration. Life changes fast.
Jacobsen: I recently returned from Ukraine with Remus Cernea, and this was my second time there. We were there about a month and a half ago, close to a month. Remus and I have been discussing current events.
Rivera: I recently read that North Korea is hinting that it wants to help Russia militarily.
Jacobsen: It’s more than a hint. That’s a whole other topic. From a Canadian vantage, there can be misunderstanding from Americans about Puerto Rico’s status, its people, and its culture. Sometimes, it even leads to stereotypes like the one mentioned by a comedian recently.
I don’t know the comedian’s name. There could be others, almost a benevolent version of the reverse. Puerto Rico’s exotic or something othering. But really, it’s the same principle — it doesn’t humanize people. It’s about presenting a combination of attributes people recognize without really showing a full picture of who someone is.
So, what do you recommend for activists working in a specific context who want to expand their efforts, build alliances, travel, lecture, attend world congresses of humanism, and other such events?
Rivera: That’s a great topic. I’ve had the privilege to do that, and I still do, though not actively because of my phase. But, hopefully, I’ll get back to it in the future.
I’ve had the privilege to experience and compare worldviews and interpretations of humanism that differ from mine. Humanism is, after all, human-centered. And with so many different human experiences worldwide, each affected by political, cultural, environmental, and other influences, there are countless varieties. It would be a lifelong journey to explore every version of humanism. I’ve had the chance to meet people from other countries, understand their challenges, and learn about the solutions they’ve developed. It was incredibly enriching to be exposed to all that.
Thinking about it now, if you have the opportunity to support activists — whether they’re younger or not — by providing financial support so they can meet others, travel, and broaden their experiences, that’s another way to give back. If I hadn’t done all those things, I wouldn’t have gained as much culture from others, and I might never have met you!
Jacobsen: However, I probably reached out by email at some point.
Rivera: But truly, there’s no replacement for direct experience. It was a magical time, and I hope to revisit it once I’m through this phase of my life. So, I would encourage anyone I can in Puerto Rico to become more active. Absolutely.
Anthony Cruz Pantojas, MATS, MALS, BCC (they/them), is the Humanist Chaplain and Coordinator of Africana Spirituality at Tufts University. Currently, they are a board member for Secular Coalition for America, The Humanist Society, as well as the International Association of Chaplains in Higher Education. Cruz Pantojas’s praxis centers Afro-Caribbean humanist and freethought philosophies, promotes critical imagining and self-discovery, and inspires individuals to question and reimagine their inner/outer worlds.
Cruz Pantojas talks about becoming a humanist chaplain, a role grounded in nonjudgmental care for diverse communities. Pantojas explains that humanist chaplains provide support not limited to humanist ideology, adhering to a pluralistic and ethically guided approach. They highlight the extensive education and clinical training required, such as programs at the United Theological Seminary, and the challenges chaplains face, including misconceptions from both humanist and non-humanist communities. Cruz Pantojas emphasizes humanist chaplaincy’s unique space for critical inquiry and the cultivation of interconnectedness, aiming to address skepticism and encourage broader acceptance within varied institutional settings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Anthony, and today we’re going to discuss the path to becoming a humanist chaplain. There are many nuances to this subject, and I may not be aware of all of them.
In fact, it will take some time to unpack these. So, Anthony, what would you say is a key motivation for someone interested in becoming a humanist chaplain?
Anthony Cruz Pantojas, Humanist Chaplain at Tufts (photo by Evan Clark)
Anthony Cruz Pantojas: Wow, thank you so much for that question, Scott. I’m not sure if I can provide a straightforward answer to that.
In general, a chaplain — before associating with any specific philosophical, religious, or cultural tradition — develops an understanding that their role in chaplaincy is shaped and oriented by the needs they identify within the groups, communities, or chapters they serve. In North America, chaplains typically adopt a pluralistic, non-personalizing, non-judgmental, and expansive approach to their practice, whether it’s in higher education, hospitals, prisons, or other contexts.
Since chaplains often work with vulnerable populations, they are not only representing a humanist perspective but also the organization they are affiliated with. For example, in a hospital setting, a chaplain provides care and companionship to everyone — not solely as a humanist but as a chaplain, adhering to a code of ethics from both their tradition and the place of employment or volunteer service. Humanism is not exempted from this framework. The Humanist Society, which is the professional organization endorsing celebrants and humanist chaplains, has its own code of ethics. This means it’s not enough to simply identify as a humanist or to adopt the title of “humanist chaplain”; there is a comprehensive review and endorsement process to hold that representational role.
In addition, aside from The Humanist Society, humanist chaplains are often members of broader professional chaplaincy associations. It’s not a simple checkbox; it’s an extensive, formative process.
Jacobsen: Could you elaborate on this broader code of ethics and highlight some key principles that distinguish a humanist chaplain from general chaplaincy while maintaining an ethic common to all chaplains, including humanist chaplains?
Pantojas: Certainly. At least in North America, there are several organizations, such as the Association of Professional Chaplains and the Spiritual Care Association. Each has its own history and emphasis in the field.
But I would say, unless a professional association specifies a particular faith — like associations for Muslim, Christian, or Jewish chaplains, which do exist — overall, the field holds a generalist orientation. By that, I mean that unless there’s a hyphenated professional title, like “Catholic Chaplains Association” or something similar, much of chaplaincy work is humanistic. It’s about providing nonjudgmental care, not just a listening ear, but a truly trained capacity to hold complexity, to understand nuance, and to become a resource for the client, patient, or staff member seeking this existential framework of care while they operate within a specific context.
If we pair that with organizations like The Humanist Society or similar groups, we see close parallels in terms of the ethics we uphold. For instance, one line that comes to mind is that The Humanist Society in North America explicitly states that although you are a humanist chaplain, you are also required to provide care for everyone. That’s a powerful message because it affirms that a humanist outlook, worldview, or orientation can embrace a broad spectrum of possibilities for people, without any agenda to convert them to humanism.
As a chaplain, you’re always reflecting back the language and needs of the person you’re supporting, centering their agency and power. When individuals want to formally pursue this path, they often have a clear motivation. They’ve recognized the codes of ethics required in this profession and understand the need for appropriate education, credentials, and memberships.
Jacobsen: What are those steps, and how can someone go through each of them in a practical manner?
Pantojas: Yes, I’d say — fortunately or unfortunately — there aren’t many options, but the ones that do exist are worthwhile. In North America, we have the United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, which is historically a United Church of Christ seminary for theological formation and now offers a humanist studies track. This can be part of either a Master of Divinity or a Master of Leadership Studies with a focus on humanism, in collaboration with the Center for Education in North America. Students there are not mentored by just any faculty; they work with people who have experience in diverse fields and can provide guidance specifically in humanism.
In the Netherlands, there’s also the University for Humanistic Studies, among other institutions that individuals could explore. I always advise people to look for funding first; that way, they can match the rest — mentors, specific programs, and close-knit experiences — around that foundation. Education, especially graduate-level, isn’t cheap in North America, so finding a place that offers financial aid or housing is ideal if those are your needs.
Jacobsen: What about the training itself? How many hours and in what forms are required to become a fully recognized humanist chaplain?
Pantojas: Yes. It varies depending on whether you’re pursuing the Master of Leadership track or the Master of Divinity. Typically, it ranges from two to four years of academic study post-bachelor’s degree. We also emphasize, as I mentioned earlier, clinical psychospiritual education, which can be completed during or after your graduate studies. In North America, this usually involves 300 hours of supervised clinical care within a designated context offering those programs, along with 100 hours of classroom education.
This training goes deep into chaplaincy as a field and as a practice within a particular context. The dominant setting for this training tends to be healthcare or psychiatric spaces, but some Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) programs are also available in prisons, community centers, and similar environments. These less traditional contexts may require more creative approaches to supervision but still need someone with the appropriate credentials to oversee the work.
However, humanist chaplaincy doesn’t guarantee a specific job, like higher education doesn’t mean you’ll become a professor simply because you have a graduate degree. Similarly, becoming a humanist chaplain doesn’t mean you’ll land a hospital or university position. It signifies a willingness to provide care in creative, often entrepreneurial capacities.
Jacobsen: If you were to estimate the number of humanist chaplains in the United States, what would that population look like?
Pantojas: I don’t have exact statistics off the top of my head. The numbers depend on whether you’re looking at officially endorsed humanist chaplains compared to, say, military chaplains, clinical chaplains, or those in higher education. In higher education specifically, there’s a relatively small number of humanist chaplains designated as such — not just a chaplain who happens to be a humanist, but someone tasked with supporting the religious, nontheist, freethinking, and other diverse communities from a humanist standpoint.
Overall, in terms of specifically endorsed humanist chaplains, I’d estimate the number might be about 150+. But I encourage a skeptical approach; and I suggest checking for more current data.
Jacobsen: Let’s say someone puts in their two to four years and becomes a humanist chaplain. What should they expect from those seeking their care, in terms of the nuanced support and feedback they’ll be providing?
Pantojas: That’s such an important question. From an intersubjective standpoint, it first requires vulnerability and recognizing, as you mentioned, that you’ve done the studies and met the requirements.
Now, when you’re out there in the field, you quickly find that you’re creating spaces for others to explore. Given our humanist orientation, it’s not about telling people what to do, believe, or practice, but rather allowing them the space to explore questions like, “What does it look like for me to hold a religious orientation to life?” and yet find myself in a humanist, humanistic, or even interbelief space where a humanist presence is there and it feels spacious. Or, at least, that’s the approach I try to model. I create spaces where we engage in critical inquiry, cultivate a sense of individual and communal responsibility, look at ourselves from a systemic perspective, and develop interconnectedness with the human experience in a way that allows for various possibilities.
That’s one of the powerful offerings I find humanist chaplaincy brings: it’s willing to sit in the uncomfortable spaces, even of contradiction.
Jacobsen: What challenges do humanist chaplains face, especially with tougher subject matter?
Pantojas: It depends on the context. For example, even among our peers within the humanist or secular world — who are often quite skeptical — people might say, “Why are you a humanist chaplain? Isn’t that a theistic or Christian role?” So there’s sometimes a lack of understanding or even a disregard for what humanist chaplaincy can offer. I find that this is one of the main challenges.
Additionally, humanist chaplains aren’t present in many conversations across institutions, and building those relationships and showing up as humanist chaplains is something we each develop on our own over time.
From the non humanist side, there can also be suspicion or skepticism. People might think, “You’re a humanist chaplain; can you even care for me or accompany me?” Or if you mention that you’re an atheist, people may question whether you’re truly able to support them. It can be challenging to face these same questions repeatedly. But, through proximity, care, and genuine accompaniment, it’s often possible to diffuse biases, prejudices, misunderstandings, or the lack of exposure to what a humanist chaplain can offer.
Jacobsen: Anthony, thank you very much for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.
Pantojas: You’re most welcome. Thank you so much for the conversation.
Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein is an undisputed leader of the national movement to restore the obliterated wall separating church and state in the most technologically lethal organization ever created by humankind: the United States armed forces. Described by Harper’s magazine as “the constitutional conscience of the U.S. military, a man determined to force accountability,” Mikey’s family has a long and distinguished U.S. military history spanning three consecutive generations of military academy graduates and over 130 years of combined active duty military service in every major combat engagement our country has been in from World War I to the current Global War on Terror. Mikey is a 1977 Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. He left Mr. Perot’s employ in 2006 to focus his full-time attention on the nonprofit charitable foundation he founded to directly battle the far-right militant radical evangelical religious fundamentalists: the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’re back again with Mikey Weinstein. We’re in the final stretch of the federal election season in the United States. What are the main concerns coming your way? What issues are you identifying outside of those directly affecting your constituencies during this election? First, we are a 501(c)(3), so we can’t tell anyone how to vote, but we can certainly discuss the issues involved here.
Mike Weinstein: If anyone has read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, with its dystopian portrayal of a Christian Nationalist United States, that offers a striking example of what we’re trying to prevent. It’s a simple question to answer, Scott. Our biggest concern is that we were the first organization to sound the alarm on what eventually became known as Christian Nationalism. We’ve been addressing it since the early 2000s.
For many years, people accused us of wearing tinfoil hats. But here we are now. We first identified this threat in the early 2000s and are now in our 21st year of fighting it. I know it’s Friday, and I might be waxing a bit philosophical. Still, when Christian nationalism infiltrates our police force, firefighters, sewage departments, public schools, and legislatures, it’s already alarming. However, when it reaches the technologically most lethal organization our species has ever created — the U.S. military, with all its nuclear weapons, drones, laser-guided, and conventional weapons — it’s not just an issue or a challenge. It’s a national security threat to this country and the world.
We are working to prevent what we see as the ultimate manifestation of Christian nationalism merging with the United States military — the technologically most lethal organization ever created.
This situation has many dimensions, but it’s easy to understand. This is not some complex meal like Chateaubriand — it’s a hamburger. In other words, you cannot use your military authority to impose a weaponized version of the gospel of Jesus Christ on helpless subordinates.
We have a press release coming out soon. A day or two ago, I sent you a letter about an Air Force group commander who forced his subordinate squadron commanders and all members to watch a controversial Christian film. While I can’t name the film, it shouldn’t be too hard to guess.
Unlike Israel, which lacks a formal constitution, America has one, and a fundamental part of it is the separation of church and state. Our founding framers looked at European history and saw that much of the horror resulted from clerics wielding state power, such as Cromwell in England. We didn’t have to look far: the Salem witch trials in our history were a strong warning about what happens when theological perspectives gain governmental power. Many Muslim-majority countries, for example, lack separation between mosque and state, which provides a clear example of the risks we are trying to prevent here.
But in America, we do have that separation. We have it here for a reason. November 5 is the most consequential moment in the history of this country, if not the most consequential in the history of the West or arguably the world. In past conflicts, like the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War, there was no social media, no nuclear weapons, no drones, or laser-guided missiles. So, it’s a terrifying prospect.
I don’t know what’s going to happen. I’d rather not be a doomsday predictor. Still, it’s hard to see how, no matter who wins on November 5, this country may avoid some semblance of a civil war with potentially blood spilled on the streets. It’s indeed a difficult time. From what we deal with at the foundation, you may remember that last summer, certain MAGA members of the U.S. House of Representatives tried to amend the largest part of the federal budget, the National Defense Authorization Act — the Pentagon funding bill. They attempted, without open disclosure, to make it a felony for anyone in the U.S. military to reach out to us for help.
Our organization’s name was mentioned three times, and their president mentioned me personally in connection with that amendment. We caught it in time and worked for six months with Senate Democrats to remove it before it reached Biden’s desk in those quiet days between Christmas and New Year’s. I often feel, and I wonder if it’s similar to your experience, Scott, that our enemies better define us than our friends. We certainly expect to be targeted if MAGA gains control, and we need to know what’s coming with the House and Senate.
We can already see what’s happening on the Supreme Court, which essentially granted Trump immunity in a recent ruling. I’ve touched on many topics. Still, we’re having this conversation during an especially uncertain time, with dark clouds gathering quickly. Suppose they’re permitted to control the machinery of the state here in America. In that case, it’s hard to see how there won’t be violence.
Jacobsen: Recently, the United States Air Force Academy’s Superintendent, Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind, submitted a memo affirming the need for religious neutrality, aligned with Air Force Instruction 1–1, Section 2.16. This section prohibits religious favoritism within the U.S. military. You praised him for this. What about the interaction and his actions stood out to you?
Weinstein: I’m glad you mentioned that. This was the first time a senior Air Force official acknowledged the existence of this regulation. We’ve worked very hard at the foundation for years, collaborating with key senior personnel at Air Force Headquarters and the Pentagon, who showed courage. These particular generals and other leaders helped advance what was originally Air Force Instruction 1–1, Section 2.12. It required that leaders at all levels in the Air Force ensure their words and actions can’t be reasonably construed as supporting one faith over another or none at all. This eventually evolved into Section 2.16, which reinforces the same principle.
So we did, yes. We put out a release praising him. We also asked him to stay out of our client’s business at the Air Force Academy. I’m a graduate, and three of my kids are. Because before this, he’d crossed us on three separate occasions. He’s only been the superintendent since August 2, Scott. He last came there three months ago, yet he got on our radar almost immediately.
In his change-of-command speech, he reportedly told his audience of cadets, faculty, and staff about something he called “perfect spiritual beings.” After three instances of interfering with our clients there — cadets, faculty, and staff — we have over 100 clients at the Academy — he finally did something right. So, credit where it’s due.
Using a baseball analogy, he’s now batting 1 for 4. The first three times, he swung and missed. However, this recent action strongly supported an Air Force directive that was not just advisory. As a former judge advocate and an attorney, I know it’s a directive with legal teeth. Violating it can lead to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
So, yes, we praised him. But we have no formal relationship with the Academy. That was severed in August 2010 when the then-superintendent, Mike Gould, refused to act against an organization called Cadets for Christ, a Christian nationalist, dominionist group that was out of control. That’s when we broke off relations. The Academy became ground zero in our fight, which began on February 4, 2004. That’s when Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, emerged. We often call it The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre or Freddy vs. Jesus. There was intense pressure from the senior officer and senior cadet command chain for cadets, faculty, and staff to see it. If you’ve seen it, you’ll remember it. It’s astonishing when commanders make it mandatory for subordinates to watch a film like that.
Today, we’re releasing a statement about another Air Force commander who forced subordinates to watch a Christian film. We have yet to reveal the title or location. Still, this action is a blatant violation of Air Force Instruction 1–1, Section 2.16, violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also conflicts with Article VI, Clause 3, which states that there should be no religious test for public office. I might be mixing up the references. Still, it breaches various directives, federal and state regulations, and case law.
Until people face real consequences for this behavior, change won’t happen. Imagine if there were a 70 mph speed limit on a highway in Vancouver, and people regularly drove 130 mph because there were no consequences. We’ve been calling for someone to be court-martialed for violating the civil rights of military members for over two decades, and we’re still waiting. We’ve seen people get fired and receive letters of reprimand or counseling, but we have yet to see real accountability.
We’ve seen some people suddenly have their careers derailed, but we would like to demonstrate how essential it is to recognize this civil right for military members. We also have clients across all eighteen national security agencies, including the big ones everyone knows — the CIA, NSA, FBI, and so on. We have clients in the U.S. Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, not DOD, and in the U.S. Maritime Service, specifically the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy under the Department of Transportation.
Most of our clients are within the DOD. When a service member is even gently evangelized by their military superior, they can’t exactly say, “Get out of my face, sir or ma’am.” They risk facing a court-martial for insubordination, so they come to us. We provide what we call AARP — not the organization for seniors, but Anonymity, Action, Results, and Protection.
We’ve never compromised the identity of any of our clients, and we never will. I’ve been asked by a judge in federal court to reveal clients’ names, and I said, “I won’t do it. Put me in jail if you must, but I won’t do it.” Protecting the sanctity of our clients’ identities is paramount.
We started with just five clients in 2004–2005, even before the foundation was officially established, primarily at the Air Force Academy. We’re approaching 91,000 clients, a milestone we expect to reach soon. It’s a tough, hard fight. I didn’t ask to become a public figure; this role found me. They don’t teach you how to start a civil rights advocacy organization in law school or as an undergrad at the Academy.
If you’re a professional athlete or a Hollywood star, being a public figure might be “cool.” But in my line of work, there are four things: lonely, dangerous, brutal, and expensive. We have dogs — not pets but elite-level protection German Shepherds. They’re expensive, yes, but necessary defense weapons. We have firearms, personal bodyguards, and a strong relationship with local law enforcement, and we’re always watching our backs. Even simple outings like going to a movie or a restaurant require constant vigilance. We’re labelled part of the “enemies from within,” a term Trump has used.
The U.S. Congress has never attempted to target Planned Parenthood or the ACLU the way they did us recently, trying to, in effect, legislate us out of existence. We wear that as a red badge of courage, a sign that we’re getting under the right people’s skin, but it’s a tough battle. I’m not a politician; I’m a civil rights advocate. America has an incredible number of nuclear weapons and a vast number of power levers. It’s dangerous when those levers fall into the hands of people who feel led not by established case law or the U.S. Constitution but by a particularly weaponized interpretation of a 2,000- or 3,000-year-old text.
This isn’t a “Houston, we have a problem” situation. As I said before, we have a national security threat within our own country, just as serious as external threats from ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. People don’t like hearing that.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mikey.
Andreea Bourgeois, Director of Economics at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discussed private investment rebounding in Q4 due to declining borrowing rates, easing supply chain delays, and labor shortages. High interest rates had previously discouraged large equipment purchases, and supply chain issues delayed investment. Labor shortages also impacted businesses, especially in skilled roles. Concerns over potential U.S. tariffs have lowered optimism among exporting and importing small businesses, particularly in manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. Domestic businesses remain stable but still face supply chain vulnerabilities. Small business trade data highlights economic uncertainty. Andreea Bourgeois emphasized shifting economic trends and provided resources for further analysis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What factors contributed to the private investment rebound in the fourth quarter of last year?
Andreea Bourgeois: The most significant factor was the decline in borrowing rates, as interest rates dropped. When we run our economic model, we use survey data that includes a question on short-term investment plans. Investment levels among our members have been very modest.
So, when we process that data through an econometric model, we’re not going to see large investment numbers. Investment had been negative post-pandemic.
One reason was supply chain issues — even if businesses wanted to invest, delays in delivering equipment made purchases difficult, sometimes taking months.
The second major factor was high interest rates, which discouraged businesses from financing large equipment purchases.
I’m not talking about small office supplies — a smart stapler, for example, wouldn’t impact investment trends. I mean large-scale machinery — tractors, industrial equipment, and technology infrastructure, which can cost millions of dollars.
With borrowing costs so high, business owners simply had no appetite for major investments. We saw a temporary rise in demand when the economy first reopened, and consumer demand skyrocketed — canoes, paddleboards, and anything that allowed people to get outside sold out everywhere. Even bicycles were in short supply globally.
Jacobsen: I remember hearing about that situation.
Bourgeois: Yes. The shortage was caused by a single missing component — a small part manufactured in China. When it couldn’t be shipped, companies had to either:
Find an alternative supplier in Canada,
Redesign products to eliminate that part, or
Simply wait until supply chains recovered.
This situation caused investment to tick up slightly, but with high prices and interest rates, appetite for investment remained low. Now that borrowing costs are decreasing, we’re seeing investment intentions rise again.
Another factor — though not as significant as interest rates — was labor shortages. Post-pandemic, labor shortages were the number one issue for small businesses. Many couldn’t find workers because:
Government support programs were still in place,
Workers were still recovering from illness,
Businesses had to offer more sick days to accommodate health concerns.
As a result, many business owners had to rethink their operations, especially in labor-intensive industries. Today, labor shortages have eased somewhat, thanks to high immigration levels. However, that does not mean businesses are no longer struggling to find workers.
Instead, we’re now dealing with skilled labor shortages. It’s not that people aren’t available — it’s that the people available don’t always have the right skills. This, in turn, affects investment in technology.
For example, a business owner might buy advanced equipment, but if their employees lack the skills to operate it, the investment goes to waste. So, while borrowing costs and interest rates were the primary factors influencing investment, labor shortages and inflation also played a role.
Jacobsen: There are a lot of overlapping factors running through my mind right now.
We’ve got a minute before this call ends, because I’m using a trial version and I’m cheap.
So here’s my proposal:
We disconnect at :15 past the hour,
The same link should still work,
If we don’t end the call completely, we should be able to rejoin,
And that will give me time to grab some coffee.
Jacobsen: There are talks of tariffs from the United States under the Trump administration. If a 25% tariff is imposed on Canadian products, what would be the general impact? More specifically, what would be the impact on the Canadian economy in Q1?
Bourgeois: Many high-level economists have estimated and calculated the potential impacts from different angles. Recently, I read an article predicting that the effects would be devastating across all sectors, though some industries would be hit harder than others.
I don’t want to overstep into their territory, but what I can say is that the implications would be vast — for businesses, consumers, and governments. Bottom line: this would affect everyone. However, I do have something unique that most economists don’t — real data on how small businesses would be impacted.
Using the same CFIB survey, we wanted to enrich the dataset and better understand how these tariffs would affect small businesses specifically. Last year, we reviewed our survey methodology — and given how much I care about this survey, it’s like my fifth child, if you will.
We compared our dataset to similar surveys from other countries and asked: “What are we missing?” One key area we identified was gathering more detailed information about the businesses themselves. We already collect data on:
Business location,
Number of employees,
Industry sector,
Products or services sold.
But we were missing critical trade data. So, we added new questions to determine:
Do they export?
Do they import?
Are they part of the event sector?
This last point is important. For example, during the pandemic, we saw major disruptions in the events sector — but that’s not the same as tourism.
The event sector is its own industry.
Tourism is separate.
Hospitality is even broader, covering both and more.
To capture this data, we introduced an additional, completely voluntary section to our survey in July. We call it the Business Profile Survey. At the end of the regular survey, members have the option to click through and answer a few additional questions. They’re not even questions in the traditional sense — they’re more like demographics.
Bourgeois: When you fill out a survey, at the end, they often ask you demographic questions — your age, income category, or other details. These questions help the researchers contextualize responses. We have implemented a similar approach for our CFIB members.
One of the new questions we added to our Business Profile Survey focuses on international trade activity. Starting in July of last year, we gave members the option to identify their trade activity by clicking on a response:
They export,
They import,
They do both, or
They do neither (entirely Canada-focused businesses).
By cross-analyzing these responses with optimism levels, we created an Optimism Index for these subcategories. If you check our website — and I can share a link with you after this call — you’ll see that optimism levels for exporting businesses have dropped at an alarming rate since November.
Now, for someone looking at the data without context, they might simply say, “Oh, there’s a sharp decline in November.” But if you factor in policy developments, you’ll notice that November was also the first time that U.S. tariff discussions began escalating. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a tariff threat, but it was the first major policy shift that impacted business confidence.
Jacobsen: That makes sense.
Bourgeois: It’s also important to remember that no index remains perfectly stable. If an index is completely flat all the time, it means it’s not a reliable indicator. Nothing is truly static — not even body temperature.
Your weight fluctuates slightly every day.
Some days, business owners are optimistic; on others, they’re not.
A large unexpected expense can shake confidence, while a strong sales day can boost it.
So, while fluctuations are normal, what stands out here is that we’ve recorded a significant 8-point drop in optimism among exporting businesses since November. Looking at sectoral data, the businesses most affected by export concerns belong to:
Manufacturing,
Professional services,
Transportation,
Wholesale,
Agriculture.
This isn’t surprising — these industries are highly dependent on international trade. However, what makes this dataset unique is that it is small business-focused. Unlike traditional trade reports, it does not include large corporations.
For example, Canada’s number one export to the U.S. is energy products — oil, gas, and natural gas. That data is dominated by major corporations, not CFIB members. Small businesses typically export niche products — things like machinery components, screws, maple syrup, or specialty goods related to larger industries.
If you are exporting crude oil, you’re not a CFIB member — that’s a large-scale corporate operation. So, our data captures the direct impact of trade shifts on smaller, independent businesses. Interestingly, we also saw a drop in optimism among importers.
Even businesses that only buy from foreign markets are feeling the impact of potential retaliatory tariffs from Canada — particularly on U.S. imports. This fear is causing uncertainty, which affects business decision-making.
Now, looking at domestic-only businesses, their optimism levels have remained relatively stable — not perfectly flat, but with no major downturns. These businesses typically have:
Local supply chains,
Local customer bases,
Minimal exposure to international disruptions.
Take a small bakery, for example. You probably have a favorite local bakery, where everything feels entirely local. However, even that small bakery is likely dependent on at least one imported product — whether it’s a specialty ingredient, packaging material, or equipment component.
For example, when the war in Ukraine began, we were running the same survey. Did the survey immediately capture the economic impact of the war? Not right away. However, what it did capture were hundreds of comments from business owners.
One I remember vividly was from a small hotdog stand owner. He wrote: “I can’t get my mustard. My mustard supplier is in Ukraine.” That’s how global events trickle down — even for businesses that don’t directly engage in international trade. And now, we’re starting to see similar concerns emerge again, as uncertainty around tariffs and supply chains increases.
So, you see something we don’t, and there was also another specific case — a type of flour used by bakeries. I can’t recall the exact kind, but it’s a specialized variety that requires a specific climate. So, as much as you love your local bakery, the likelihood is that at least one ingredient they rely on comes from outside the country.
And that’s what will have the biggest impact on all of us.
Jacobsen: Do you have any charts or final comments?
Bourgeois: Unfortunately, it’s an exciting yet troubling time to observe Canadian economics. The economic landscape is shifting, and we might see an even more dramatic turn next week (first week of February). But I say that with a sense of concern, not excitement. I wish we weren’t seeing these changes. I’ve witnessed economic shifts firsthand, coming from a communist country — Romania. Here are some relevant links for further reading:
Andreea Bourgeois, Director of Economics at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discussed Canada’s projected Q1 2025 GDP growth rate of 3.2%, CFIB’s Business Barometer, and the importance of small business sentiment data. She emphasized historical trends, labour shortages, investment rebounds, and potential tariff impacts. Bourgeois highlighted CFIB’s survey methodology and economic modelling, offering a unique perspective on Canada’s economic landscape. The conversation concluded with insights into trade dependencies and economic uncertainty.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Facts for the bio too. Today, we’re here with Andreea Bourgeois, the Director of Economics at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). She currently works with CFIB’s Research and Atlantic Legislative teams to conduct surveys and research on various economic and social issues affecting small and mid-sized businesses.
She joined CFIB in 2000 and has authored numerous reports on topics such as the shortage of skills and labour, demographic trends in Atlantic Canada, and, most recently, cyber fraud. She is also responsible for the Monthly Business Barometer, which measures small business optimism.
She earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, Romania, with a concentration in international economic relations. She also earned a Master of Science in Administration from HEC Montréal, specializing in international business and statistics.
Thank you for joining us today.
Andreea Bourgeois: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Regarding the Canadian economy, based on CFIB’s quarterly report, what is the projected growth rate for the first quarter of 2025?
Bourgeois: Can I provide some background first? I could simply quote a number and move on, but just giving a number is like asking if a restaurant is good and only hearing “yes” without any explanation. You’d want to know why it’s good, what’s on the menu, and what makes it stand out. Economics is similar — you need more than just one number to understand the full picture.
To answer your question, we projected a GDP growth rate of 3.2% for the first quarter of 2025. Our projection for Q4 2024 was also 3.2%, while Q1 2024 was 2.5%.
What I want to highlight — just as when you look at a menu — is that these figures are higher than what we have seen in recent post-pandemic quarters.
After the pandemic, Canada’s GDP growth rate at one point was zero. We even had one-quarter of slightly negative growth.
Following that, as the economy began recovering, quarterly growth rates were typically between 0.7% and 1.2%, which was relatively weak. However, this time, both Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 are projected to show stronger growth.
Now, let me put these numbers into perspective. It’s like asking if a restaurant is good — yes, but how much does the food cost?
Let’s discuss what these numbers actually mean. These projections are based on CFIB’s own economic forecasts. We work with an external Montréal-based firm that specializes in macroeconomic modelling.
They use data from our Monthly Business Barometer survey, which gathers insights directly from small business owners. In a way, this is like a fusion dish — it combines different elements.
There are many different growth projections available. Statistics Canada (StatsCan), for example, has its own projections based on mandatory business and labour force surveys.
These surveys provide reliable macroeconomic data, but our projections incorporate real-time insights from small businesses, giving a more detailed perspective on current economic conditions.
Bourgeois: We don’t conduct mandatory surveys. However, as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), we have 100,000 members across Canada. We are represented in every province, across all sectors of the economy, and in every region — including Nunavut, the territories, the Atlantic provinces, the West Coast, and the Prairies.
Once a month, we survey a randomly selected portion of our membership — not everyone — because we want to be mindful of the survey burden and respectful of our members’ time. We ask about their business optimism, their expectations for the next 12 months and three months, and the current state of their business.
This survey is focused on business sentiment, similar to the way you wake up in the morning and think, “I’m going to have a good week.” We don’t follow up with detailed financial questions like, “What are your exact sales? Take out your ledgers and provide the numbers.” Instead, we focus on the gut feeling business owners have about their operations.
Over time, as we aggregate responses from thousands of business owners, these individual perspectives become a powerful economic indicator. This data, combined with macroeconomic indicators, is fed into a statistical model developed by our external research partner.
This model is also used by the Bank of Canada, and it helps generate economic projections. I wanted to clarify this because CFIB’s business optimism data is the only economic modeling in Canada based on small business survey data. No other organization does this.
Jacobsen: What do you think would make this methodology more robust than just relying on business owners’ gut feelings? To use your analogy, it’s like saying, “I feel like I’m going to have a great day because I anticipate eating at a high-end Japanese restaurant this quarter.”
Bourgeois: Let me give you some history of the survey, which demonstrates its robustness.
This survey predates my time at CFIB — in fact, it started before I even moved to Canada. Initially, it was conducted once a year and had a different name: the Harp Act survey. At that time, it was distributed by mail, requiring business owners to:
Open the survey,
Read the questions,
Fill out the checkboxes,
Place it in an envelope,
Pay for postage,
Walk to the post office,
And mail it back to CFIB.
Despite this cumbersome process, we received between 5,000 and 10,000 responses annually. Eventually, the survey became a monthly initiative, analyzed at CFIB’s head office. I worked in CFIB’s Research Department in Toronto, where we reviewed the data and generated projections.
However, at that time, we didn’t yet use an econometric model — so there was still a strong reliance on business sentiment.
That changed when we started integrating specific business metrics, including:
Optimism levels for the next 12 and three months,
Staffing plans,
Operational strategies,
Pricing strategies,
Wage projections,
Supply chain challenges.
This evolution strengthened our economic forecasting, making it more reliable and data-driven while still capturing the real-time experiences of small business owners.
We didn’t ask business owners, “What is your supply chain?” — that’s not terminology they typically use. Instead, we asked them about their inventory levels, their stock availability over time, and their major costs and business limitations. At the time, the survey was several pages long, as I mentioned earlier. That was well before my time at CFIB.
If you recall, during the September 11 attacks in 2001, the Bank of Canada anticipated a recession. The assumption was that the economic fallout from the attack on the Twin Towers would trigger a full-scale recession in Canada, leading to a potential economic crash.
In response, the Bank of Canada wanted to adjust interest rates to stimulate the economy. This happened to coincide with one of our CFIB surveys. At that time, our Chief Economist in Toronto received a call from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who asked, “What are you hearing from small businesses?”
What we heard was very different from the panic on Bay Street. While the financial sector was experiencing turmoil, Main Street businesses were still operating. The Governor then asked, “Do you have survey data to back this up, or is this just anecdotal?” Because we are a grassroots organization, we were able to quickly adapt.
We took a few key questions from our survey and sent them via fax — which, at the time, was considered cutting-edge technology — using the same methodology and the same questions but running them weekly for six weeks.
This initiative led to the creation of the CFIB Business Optimism Index, which was based on business expectations for the next 12 months. The results showed that optimism remained stable, despite a temporary drop due to uncertainty. Naturally, the global situation created anxiety, but businesses were not shutting down.
For example:
Hair salons were still operating.
Coffee shops continued selling coffee beans.
Laundromats remained open.
At the end of six weeks, after an intense period of data collection, our Toronto team decided it was time to return to normal life — no more sleeping bags at the office. But we learned something critical: There was an enormous demand for real-time small business data.
Statistics Canada (StatsCan) had valuable data, but it was always three years behind. By the time government agencies or policymakers received the data, the economic landscape had already changed. Because of this, we shifted the survey to a quarterly format, running it quarterly until 2009.
However, by 2009, the economy had changed. Technology had improved, and our members had widespread internet access, so we transitioned the survey to a fully online format and began running it monthly.
No more paper. No more fax machines. This survey has a long history — it predates my time at CFIB, and I’ve been here for 25 years. It is strong and robust.
If you visit our CFIB website, you’ll see that we track business optimism over time. But looking at today’s index alone — which is 56.4 — isn’t enough. That’s like saying, “I paid $20 for a meal” without knowing what meal it was, how much it cost yesterday, or what it cost last week. The number alone doesn’t tell the full story.
What matters is that we have 15 years of historical data, allowing us to contextualize trends.
For example, today’s optimism level is higher than during the pandemic, but — let’s be honest — no one is measuring against pandemic-era lows.
Much lower than it was in November and much lower than it could have been if we weren’t dealing with tariff threats and political uncertainty from Ottawa.
I wouldn’t call it a freefall, but optimism has declined sharply since November.
Depending on what happens on February 1st, the February optimism reading could see another steep decline. Unfortunately, optimism is already quite low.
When we run projections for economic growth, we base them on survey data from the last quarter of 2024, which includes October, November, and December.
That said, as with any mathematical model, there are limitations. Economic projections, no matter how robust, can’t account for unpredictable factors — such as what happens on social media, what a president announces, or sudden political resignations.
In other words, political changes do not factor into economic models, no matter how much we wish they did.
Will our projections be accurate? I certainly hope so. But personally, I have doubts that the Canadian economy will maintain a strong growth rate if we face new tariffs next month.
I just wanted to put that in perspective. The numbers are correct, but keep in mind that our projections are based on survey data collected before the latest tariff threats and before the federal government announced an election.
Jacobsen: Even when you were conducting the paper-based survey, your sample size per month was 5,000 to 10,000. So you were bringing in 60,000 responses per year?
Bourgeois: That was a long time ago. The survey wasn’t open indefinitely — we typically kept it open for about six weeks. If a business owner hadn’t responded within that time, the chances of receiving their response were very low.
At that point, we had to begin analyzing the data manually. Although we had statistical software, we still relied on a dedicated research team to process responses. Each survey had to be coded and entered into a database before analysis.
Back then, I can’t give you an exact response rate, but I know for sure that when we moved to a monthly format in February 2009, our sample size was typically around 1,400 responses per month.
Over time, that number declined for various reasons. Before the pandemic, we were receiving around 800 responses per month. Survey participation tends to drop in the summer months, which is common across all survey organizations. Then the pandemic changed everything.
During the early months of COVID-19, business owners suddenly had more time and a greater need for information. We responded by running the survey twice a month, and participation skyrocketed — we were receiving about 2,000 responses every two weeks.
There was an enormous demand for survey data during the pandemic. Governments needed real-time insights to understand:
How businesses were coping,
What financial support was needed,
Which industries were most affected.
We combined this survey with another one, using it as a liaison tool between small business owners and government policymakers.
Many businesses were shut down, but expenses like heating, rent, and property taxes were still due. At the same time, revenues had disappeared, and staff were no longer coming in to operate stores or provide services.
Through our survey, we were able to convey the urgent needs of businesses to policymakers. After the pandemic, as the economy reopened, participation returned to pre-pandemic levels. For example, in January, we received 1,037 responses.
Today, in fact, we released the January edition of the Business Barometer. Our next set of economic projections will be released in April, based on survey data from January, February, and March.
This is part of a series of interviews with prominent humanists by Canadian journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen. He spoke with Dr. Herb Silverman, a prominent humanist, secular advocate, and Humanist magazine columnist.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has the separation of religion and government influenced the role of religion in 2024 American electoral politics?
Dr. Herb Silverman: Actually, it seems just the opposite — this year some religious people, mainly evangelical Christians, are trying to influence that separation. Some religious people think religion and government should not be separate. They believe the United States was founded as a Christian country and should be governed according to Christian beliefs. Not true! Our country was founded as a secular democracy in part because the founders saw what happened in Europe, with religious wars among countries where church and state were not separate. The first three words of the U.S. Constitution are “We the people,” not “Thou the deity.”
Jacobsen: What impact has the rise of secularism in the U.S. electorate had on federal political strategies?
Silverman: Some Christians erroneously believe we should go back to our roots when America was great as a Christian country — which we never were. When federal policies are influenced by religion, secularists fight back. One obvious example is the abortion controversy, with laws in many states prohibiting abortion now based specifically on religious beliefs. Secularists say it is every woman’s right to control her own body, and they view abortion based on a woman’s individual needs and beliefs, religious or not.
Jacobsen: How do secular voters' priorities compare to religious voters’ in 2024?
Silverman: Of course, we are alarmed at the possibility of even more religious influence in government if Trump wins the presidency. Take a look at Project 2025 for matters to be alarmed about. Further, many women (and some male) voters have been strongly influenced by the current abortion bans, and fear even more religious interference with contraception and IVF situations if candidate Trump wins. Secular voters say we should be governed by secular priorities, consistent with our U.S. Constitution. I want to emphasize that I don’t think all religions are bad — many religious people favour the same secular values, like doing good works, as we secularists do. Religious people are free to vote for a candidate who has what they view as the right religious views, but that is an individual choice.
Jacobsen: How has the growing secular demographic in the U.S. influenced political discourse?
Silverman: In a positive way. We are consistently gaining in numbers, and thus more of a voice in the country, and people can no longer ignore or marginalize us. We are more comfortable speaking out in favour of the separation of religion and government.
Jacobsen: What about the younger voters who are much more secular in philosophy than older ones?
Silverman: Their future looks very good. The “Nones,” people with no religious preference, is our fastest-growing demographic. This is especially true among younger people. Unfortunately, too many Nones do not vote. We need to convince them that voting is important, especially in the upcoming election. I doubt that many Nones would vote for Trump.
Jacobsen: How do court rulings on the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause shape electoral laws?
Silverman: The Constitution should remain our governing body, and any rulings against IT will be challenged up to the US Supreme Court. Whether we will win or not, given the current Court members, I cannot predict.
Jacobsen: What role has secularism played in the political mobilization of non-religious advocacy groups, and how effective are they in influencing election outcomes at the state and national levels?
Silverman: Secularists have become increasingly open and energized, especially since the prohibition of abortion in so many states. Also, the major secular organizations are challenging religious interference in secular matters throughout the country. Publicizing these legal infractions keeps the public informed of creeping religious interference in secular matters. Hopefully, the public will vote with that in mind.
Jacobsen: How does the intersection of secularism and multiculturalism in American elections shape the political engagement of religious minorities?
Silverman: Religious minorities mostly fear Trump because of his lies about immigrants and opposition to all those who are not Christian, even though Trump seems to not follow any Christian principles.
Rick Rosner is an American television writer and producer known for his work on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Man Show.” He has received Emmy and Writers Guild Award nominations for his contributions to television. Rosner is also recognized for his exceptionally high IQ and diverse career experiences, including working as a stripper, roller-skating waiter, and nude model. Rosner notes the shift from reckless behaviour in the 1970s to more responsible conduct today. They discuss how fame can be a tool for achieving creative goals and the duality celebrities balance between public and private personas. Highlighted examples include Pamela Anderson’s comeback, Jesse Eisenberg’s creative authenticity, and George Clooney’s activism. He emphasizes that while charisma and social skills aid success, talent, hard work, and authenticity are equally vital. Ethical behaviour and personal relationships often ground celebrities, fostering relatability and public admiration despite occasional controversies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In 2024, you suggested I start interviewing celebrities or media personalities. Since then, I have received emails with specific hooks pitching these individuals. Did your suggestion and the subsequent publication of my work contribute to this? I am not certain. However, celebrity interviews tend to generate the most excitement. This is demonstrated by the long-standing success of People Magazine, which has been in publication since 1974, surpassing its 50th anniversary. With celebrities, there is a natural advantage — audiences are familiar with them and want to learn more. Since the Trump era, and perhaps even earlier, public life has become increasingly politicized.
Rick Rosner: As a result, celebrities often take public stances that attract significant interest. For instance, Taylor Swift has adeptly shown her political sympathies without overly politicizing her image. Meanwhile, it was recently reported that Carrie Underwood might perform at a politically charged event, which sparked backlash. In a world oversaturated with content, celebrity interviews remain highly engaging.
Jacobsen: What do celebrities seek from interviews when the focus is not on promoting their next project, in your experience?
Rosner: Celebrities often seek to be understood as multidimensional individuals beyond their professional accomplishments. This perspective is often successful. For example, Pamela Anderson is making a significant comeback with The Last Showgirl. Interviews have highlighted her strong performance and intellectual engagement with acting as a craft, moving beyond her previous image as a star of Baywatch or someone associated with public controversies.
Audiences tend to support celebrities who appear relatable and genuine. On the other hand, they are equally fascinated by celebrities behaving poorly. Recently, Mel Gibson appeared on a podcast promoting Ivermectin as a cancer cure, spreading misinformation. This drew criticism, yet people would likely be equally interested if Gibson changed their perspective and demonstrated a more informed and positive approach.
Jacobsen: Why are people so interested in celebrities?
Rosner: One reason is that we already know much of their stories. Another is that we want them to be deserving of our interest. Celebrities have immense resources, agency, and wealth, and we want to see how they use their power.
We cheer for their relationships, even when we expect them to fail. For example, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck recently got back together. This might be their third time as a couple. People want it to work out but are intrigued by its potential to fall apart.
J.Lo is known as a diva but doesn’t seem unkind. Despite some personal struggles, Ben Affleck comes across as intelligent, kind, and fun. People generally want good things for him. He was married to Jennifer Garner, who is widely respected and seems genuinely decent.
When we see celebrities with every advantage face challenges, we question how the rest of us will manage.
Jacobsen: What does that mean for everyone else if they struggle to make relationships or personal goals work despite their resources? Which celebrities have impressed you with their commitment to causes outside Hollywood, even after achieving fame?
Rosner: Any celebrity who becomes knowledgeable and active in a cause stands out. Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, speaks about environmental issues and seems reasonably well-informed. However, he’s criticized for using yachts and private planes, contributing to the pollution he advocates against.
George Clooney also comes to mind. He is knowledgeable and upstanding and has championed causes like protecting the oceans. Additionally, Clooney has actively supported Democratic political candidates and worked to nudge President Biden on policy matters.
When George Clooney exited the race for office, reactions varied. However, he comes from a political family — his father ran for office — so he understands the landscape. He also seems like a genuinely decent person. When he became rich and famous, he gave each of his friends a million dollars, reasoning that if he could enjoy financial relief, why shouldn’t his friends share that comfort?
This generosity reflects someone who values others. My former boss was similarly charitable. I know he’s incredibly informed from years of working with him, particularly on random subjects. He’s highly tech-savvy, always online, and can quickly educate himself on nearly any topic. Many celebrities share these traits — surprisingly knowledgeable and smart, which benefits them in the entertainment industry.
Jacobsen: Do you think intelligence correlates with acting success?
Rosner: To a degree, yes. Successful actors often exhibit intelligence because it enhances their craft. While some may succeed early in their careers due to extraordinary physical attractiveness, sustaining a long-term career often requires intelligence, intuition, or hard work.
Jacobsen: How would you assess their social astuteness and emotional sensitivity?
Rosner: The entertainment industry is full of individuals with exceptional social skills, almost to the point of what could be called “reverse autism.” Many performers have heightened social understanding and intuition, which correlate with success. However, these qualities aren’t mandatory — some succeed without them.
For example, we attended a talk with Jesse Eisenberg, an actor, writer, and director. He wrote and starred in a film about cousins retracing their grandmother’s life during the Holocaust alongside Kieran Culkin. In the movie, his character has OCD, which mirrors Eisenberg’s experiences. He used rubber bands around his wrist, snapping them to stay grounded in the film and real life.
He was candid about the challenges of making that film compared to others in which he was simply a hired actor. It became clear that a creative individual who loves making art, working hard, and focusing on the craft rather than seeking widespread recognition.
Jesse Eisenberg, for example, seems to enjoy making films more than embracing the perks of being a movie star. He mentioned that being a star makes it easier to get projects funded. He can secure financing more effectively by attaching his name to a screenplay. However, he doesn’t seem drawn to stardom’s glamour or hedonistic aspects. For him, fame is a tool to achieve creative goals rather than an indulgence.
Jacobsen: Do charisma and schmoozing play a significant role in success, or can performers manage without them?
Rosner: It certainly helps, but it’s not essential. George Clooney, for instance, is naturally charming and charismatic, whether he intends to be or not.
I once worked as a doorman at the Sagebrush Cantina. One of my duties was to ensure no one parked in a specific space out front. It looked like a handicapped spot but was reserved for the fire marshal if he needed to check occupancy limits. If we exceeded those limits, the fire marshal could shut us down or start visiting regularly, which would have been bad for business.
One day, a car full of older adults parked in that spot. An older man, probably in his late 70s, got out with his wife, who was walking with a cane. I approached them to explain that they couldn’t park there. My job required me to be firm, even unpleasant, if necessary. However, as the man spoke to me, he exuded a charming, twinkling charisma. He pleaded politely, explaining his wife’s difficulty walking.
Against my better judgment, I let them park there. Afterward, I questioned myself, wondering why I had caved so easily. I couldn’t figure out if the man were deliberately persuasive or if it was just his natural demeanour. Later, I realized it was Lloyd Bridges. His charm was undeniable, whether intentional or not.
Even in his old age, Lloyd Bridges remained a charming and charismatic figure. As the father of Jeff Bridges and a star in his own right, his charisma was undeniable. It’s not a physical force like in physics but a real interpersonal force that can influence people profoundly.
This reminds me of seeing actors like Sam Elliott, who is now likely the same age Lloyd Bridges was when I met him. In his late seventies, Sam Elliott remains a familiar and charismatic figure. If you Google “Sam Elliott and wife,” you’ll see this iconic actor, who has been in movies for over 55 years, married to a petite, older woman. It’s striking because we associate stars with immense social leverage. Yet, many remain in long-term relationships with partners who seem like “regular” people.
Jacobsen: Why do you think that contrast feels unusual?
Rosner: It seems odd because we expect celebrities to maximize their social capital in all aspects of life. However, many have long-term partners who’ve been with them through the highs and lows of their careers. They’re human beings first and love their partners for reasons beyond surface appearances or public perception.
I used to work out at Gold’s Gym in North Hollywood, where I met Albert Beckles, a legendary bodybuilder. Beckles, who might now be in his mid-80s or older, was incredibly fit. Even in his seventies, he maintained a physique with around four percent body fat. Despite his age, he looked youthful, with a shaved head and a ripped body.
Occasionally, I’d see his wife or girlfriend, a petite older white woman, and their pairing seemed unusual at first glance. With his youthful appearance and powerful presence, Beckles contrasted starkly with his partner, who looked her age. However, their relationship likely spanned decades — they probably met when they were younger and grew old together. She naturally aged while he maintained a youthful appearance due to his lifestyle. It highlights how their bond was built on something deeper than appearances.
Jacobsen: Do you think celebrities have an innate duality — a personal identity and a public persona — that helps them succeed?
Rosner: Absolutely. Celebrities who reach the highest levels of fame often balance two distinct identities: their authentic selves and their celebrity personas. The way they manage this dynamic varies greatly. Some embrace their celebrity status fully, using it to fuel their careers. In contrast, others prioritize maintaining their identity and relationships. Success often depends on how well they can navigate these two facets of their lives.
These days, most celebrities manage their public lives well. We’re no longer in the age of “celebrity assholes,”which was more prevalent in the 1970s. For instance, when I was on the writing staff of a major show, the culture wasn’t about excess or indulgence. Instead of doing cocaine, we were taking fibre gummies to deal with the sedentary lifestyle of long hours at our desks.
This era has more celebrities who behave responsibly and navigate fame with maturity. I watched my former boss evolve from being largely a radio personality to one of America’s 100–150 most famous people. Despite this rise in fame, he didn’t lose his decency.
Jacobsen: How did he manage the pressures of fame while staying grounded?
Rosner: He didn’t engage in exploitative behaviour or use his position to harm others. He remained charitable and reasonable, though he enjoyed playful banter and asking awkward questions as part of his natural curiosity. His increased agency and responsibilities came with new challenges — paying for a publicist, manager, and agent and managing media interactions carefully.
However, he became less cautious in expressing his views during the Trump era. As a decent person, he felt compelled to speak out about alarming events in America. For example, he was deeply upset by the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where over 50 people were killed and more than 500 were injured. As a Las Vegas native, this tragedy hit close to home.
Traditionally, late-night hosts avoided political commentary to maintain a broad audience. But my boss, like others, felt he had to address critical issues, even at the risk of alienating some viewers.
Jacobsen: Do you think this shift reflects a broader change in celebrity culture?
Rosner: Yes. We’re in an era where most celebrities manage their public personas carefully and behave with greater responsibility. Of course, no one is perfect, and every celebrity has moments of controversy. Still, the overall trend is toward more mindful and ethical behaviour.
Celebrities, like anyone else, can occasionally be caught acting poorly. However, we are in an era where they are generally more responsible. This may be because the public is better informed, as a lack of information often leads to poor decisions. In the 1970s, I was certainly immature, as were many celebrities at the time.
Jacobsen: What about people in Hollywood who aren’t socially competent? Can they still succeed?
Rosner: Yes, it’s possible. I’m not particularly socially competent, but I managed to build a career. Part of my success was due to a writing partnership with someone who excelled socially — what I’d call “reverse autism.” He handled the social dynamics, which was helpful, even if it wasn’t always easy.
Additionally, you can succeed without social prowess if you’re good at what you do. I worked hard and developed skills that compensated for my shortcomings. For example, I became comfortable admitting personal flaws and turning them into humour, similar to what stand-up comedians do. If my jokes didn’t land, I could still make people laugh by being candid about embarrassing topics.
Many talented individuals in entertainment, some on the spectrum or socially unconventional, succeed because of their competence, creativity, and hard work.
Jacobsen: What about people at the lower levels of entertainment, like production assistants or interns?
Rosner: At the entry-level, I’ve noticed a mix of talent and incompetence. Many interns or PAs I encountered early in my career were hired through connections rather than merit. Some were unreliable or lacked dedication. This often allowed competent and hardworking individuals — even unconventional — to stand out and advance.
Over time, the less capable individuals tend to be weeded out. In the early stages, though, it’s possible to succeed as a “weirdo” if you’re reliable, competent, hardworking, or possess a couple of those qualities.
Jacobsen: What if someone is found to be unethical or fraudulent?
Rosner: I’ve been fortunate to work with mostly ethical people. While dishonesty exists in any industry, I’ve rarely encountered it directly. Ethical behaviour tends to matter more as people advance, where reputations carry greater weight.
Rick Rosner: So, I feel that in this election, there aren’t a lot of clear signals, but I found one indicator that consistently provides clear and accurate results about voter preferences, and that’s counting the votes.
Carl Allen: Yes, that’s the best way to do it. Yes, that’s the best way to do it. Not everyone wants to do that, though. Some people would rather not count all the votes, but that is the best way to determine who wins.
Rosner: Aside from that, are there any clear indicators? Exit polls make me a little uneasy because they serve other purposes, but mostly they just fill airtime so that news outlets have something to discuss during the 12 hours between the polls opening and closing.
Allen: In other countries, exit polls are much more accurate because they know who has voted. They’re legitimate exit polls, and most people vote at the polling place itself. In the U.S., however, there’s a significant discrepancy due to vote-by-mail, early voting, and in-person voting on Election Day. This makes it harder to aggregate the numbers because every poll has a margin of error, and in these cases, you end up stacking multiple margins of error on top of each other.
So, exit polls are useful — more useful than no exit polls — but when we’re looking at close elections across swing states, if I see a 52–48 split either way, I don’t take that as a definitive victory for any candidate. It’s simply too close, especially when we’re analyzing exit poll data.
Rosner: Are there clear indicators this time around? There are a few things I look at to give myself hope that my preferred candidate will win. One indicator is that it appears women are out-voting men 55 to 45. However, that’s an uncertain statistic because not all states release that demographic data consistently. But, you can see gender numbers across all states on news sites like NBC. I don’t know where they’re getting that data, and sometimes it feels like they’re making it up.
Allen: However, they’re not; there’s always solid data. Different states provide different demographic breakdowns for their polls. For example, Pennsylvania and Nevada provide a detailed breakdown of party affiliation, age, gender, and more, while other states, like Michigan and Georgia, only provide limited demographic information such as age, race, and a few other data points.
For Harris, it’s encouraging that women are voting more early, but this has always been the case. Historically, women have consistently outperformed men in early voting, and Democrats have generally outperformed Republicans in this regard. However, the gap has narrowed between Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans are now encouraging their supporters to vote early more than ever before. Still, there’s very limited data, and this is how I explain it to people: the polls indicate a close race. Harris is favored because she’s leading in the Blue Wall states, while other key states are toss-ups. But the polls continue to indicate a close race, and all the early voting data we’re obsessing over, no matter how it’s analyzed, still suggests a close race.
For example, Pennsylvania looks better for Democrats than Nevada, but Nevada has always been an anomaly with its early voting data. It’s always been a bit of an outlier. As statisticians and analysts, we know that states are all correlated in some ways, but Nevada remains unpredictable.
So what Pennsylvania does isn’t entirely independent of what Michigan does because people tend to act similarly. But Nevada — they’ve always been a bit of an outlier. So, all we know from the early vote data is that neither candidate will win in a blowout, but we already pretty much knew that, right?
Rosner: I have a show where I argue with a Trump-supporting guy, and we were doing that last night. Atlas Intel came up — they’re a pollster. Yep. He, of course, you’ve trained me pretty well by now. He said, “Atlas Intel seems to be one of the better pollsters,” and I was like, no.
They were the most accurate in 2020, and I responded, “Yes, but that accuracy doesn’t mean much.”
Allen: Oh my god, yes. So, this pattern that people have been brainwashed into believing — and I use the word brainwashed intentionally here because it’s teaching people to believe something that’s not true — is that whichever pollster is closest to the final election margin is therefore the most accurate. It incorporates all sorts of unscientific assumptions. One example I use is, if I roll two dice, we know that the average over a long period of time is going to be 7. The most common outcome of an individual roll will be 7. But if I say, “No, it’s going to be 5,” and you say, “I’m going to pick 7 because 7 is the most likely outcome,” well, there’s about a 1 in 3 chance that I could be closer than you — just by luck. For random, literal chance.
So we have to be very careful when we’re talking about a sample size of 1, which is the 2020 presidential election, and saying, “Oh, they were closest on the margin.” Even if I granted that this is a legitimate metric for measuring poll accuracy — which it’s not — it’s not actually measuring poll accuracy. But even if I grant it, there’s a term in legal speak where we grant, or use, the logic of argument —
Rosner: Yes, for the sake of argument.
Allen: Even if I were to grant that, it still doesn’t prove anything. It just means they were directionally closer than other pollsters. When you look at 2020, 2018, 2016 — the math — if you do the math on how many elections we would need to truly figure out who the most accurate pollsters are, we’re talking hundreds of years. Because an election happens only every four years, so we’d need sample sizes in the dozens, if not hundreds, to quantify who the most accurate pollsters are. And that’s obviously not realistic, assuming their methodologies never change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yeah, and it also assumes that those pollsters live that long.
Allen: Yes. There are too many faulty assumptions to say a pollster was the most accurate just because they were closest in one instance, and that’s the unscientific mindset that Silver and the mainstream analysts and experts have brainwashed people into believing. They don’t just accept this, they actively promote it themselves, which demonstrates that they do not uphold any scientific standards.
Rosner: So, my question for you is: Do sports playoffs and sportscasting make you crazy because they have no way of determining who the best team is, since they don’t play enough games?
Allen: That is absolutely correct. The thing about sample size in playoffs is that you have a 3-game, 5-game, or 7-game series — sometimes just one game — but the team that wins advances. Statistically speaking, the best team is less likely to win the championship than a lower-ranked team.
Because you’re dealing with, in any given season, maybe 5 to 10 teams that are good enough to win the championship. Statistically, the best team might only have a 10%, 20%, or 30% chance of winning. So, the best team doesn’t regularly win, which messes with our perception because it doesn’t seem to make sense.
People think, “Well, they’re the best team, so shouldn’t they win?” That’s when I go back to the dice analogy. I say, “The most common roll is a 7, but the most common outcome is still less likely than all the other outcomes combined.”
Rosner: Yes. I was watching the World Series, and baseball is perhaps one of the most random major sports. Yet, they constantly explain the pitcher’s intentions and what they were trying to do with the batter. They act like every outcome is planned, and it’s like, no. It’s maybe 20% what the pitcher wanted and 80% randomness.
Allen: That’s the uncomfortable truth about human performance. One of my first areas of research was athletic performance — how to maximize it, improve it, and find an edge. People have a hard time believing that we can quantify human performance because there’s so much randomness involved. It’s really hard. So, when we’re talking about athletes at the elite level, everything can be expressed as a probability.
Take Anthony Volpe hitting a home run yesterday. Volpe didn’t hit many home runs in the regular season, so it was highly unlikely that he would hit one, and yet, he did. Unlikely events happen all the time, but in sports, we have a huge sample size — a 162-game regular season, with about 4 at-bats per game, give or take.
So we have this huge sample size in sports where, when rare things happen, we kind of accept it as, “Wow, that was great, that was crazy.” But when we’re talking about politics, where our sample size is an election every 2 to 4 years, when rare things happen, people perceive it as, “Someone did the math wrong.” So, when Anthony Volpe stepped to the plate, I would have said he had probably a 1-in-30 or 1-in-40 chance of hitting a home run.
And he did. Was your math wrong? Maybe, maybe not, but rare events happen all the time. That’s hard to process when we’re thinking about deterministic outcomes, like winning and losing an election.
Rosner: Speaking of tricky math, what’s happening this year is similar to what happened in 2022, and maybe a bit in 2020. You have pollsters who are trying to be accurate, and then you have pollsters with an agenda. They might still be trying to be accurate but are also pushing certain insights.
I don’t know how hard they’re trying to be accurate, but I do know that if you go to their home page, you’ll see they hate Kamala Harris. There are 8 articles about how she and the Democrats are the worst people on earth, and here’s how Trump can beat them. And then they release a daily poll on Harris versus Trump nationally.
And because it’s a daily poll, it overshadows all the other polls, which are usually weekly. So you look at the list of recent polls, and 5 out of 8 of them are from Tip Insights.
Allen: Yes. Their methodology seems fine as far as I can tell, but it’s interesting to see pollsters with a clear bias. You have to figure out how that bias might influence their work. In my book, I wrote about this at length because it’s important to note that everyone has biases. Most pollsters are biased because you don’t get into polling without an interest in politics, and you don’t have an interest in politics without having some political bias. So, the fact that pollsters themselves can be biased doesn’t mean their data isn’t reliable or valid.
That’s why we need transparent standards — like who they’re contacting and how they’re weighting the data. Nate Silver’s operating hypothesis is that pollsters will always act with accuracy in mind. He believes that the pressure from within the field will push them to act with accuracy because that’s how they’re ultimately judged. But starting before 2022, and especially as I was finishing research for my book in 2022, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: pollsters who were releasing boring polls — showing close races or whatever, without a big headline — weren’t getting much attention.
But these partisan pollsters were putting out headlines like “Oz is ahead” or “Lake is leading” or some underdog candidate was winning, and those polls blew up. They got tons of attention. So I started thinking: the reason pollsters release their poll data in the first place is to promote their brand or their work. Political polling is a small part of what these population research companies do. The political polling is the thing they almost give away for free — or very cheaply. They break even or take a loss on it to promote their other work elsewhere.
Rosner: Why don’t you do political consulting?
Allen: So I said, wait a minute. If they’re doing this work almost for free to promote what they’re selling, they have a clear idea of who their target market is.
Right, it’s easy for me to calculate that some of these partisan actors might not be acting with accuracy in mind. If releasing a poll that says, “49–46, Trump is ahead” makes them more money — when their actual data might show 47–47 or 48–48 — that’s an easy choice for them, especially when the race is that close. So, we have to be careful. I understand that pollsters aren’t always prioritizing accuracy, and the belief that all pollsters have the same intentions is a little misplaced and, frankly, dangerous.
Rosner: So, I noticed you’re wearing a wedding ring. When I try to talk to my wife about, say, physics, she’ll go, “Oh my god, talk to me about something that isn’t boring.” When you talk to your wife about the intricacies of polling, does she have a time limit before she says, “Okay, enough”?
Allen: My wife is extremely intelligent. My intelligence is more laser-focused, so when I want to learn something, I go very deep into it. She’s incredibly smart in that she picks up things quickly. So, when I talk to her about poll data, she’s engaged and asks, “What about this?” And that’s usually the next thing I’ve been researching. She’s on the same page as me, but she has a lot of anxiety around political outcomes because she’s a normal human being who cares about the state of the world.
The idea that so many people could vote for someone she finds reprehensible really makes her upset. So, we don’t talk too much about the political side of things. But when we focus on the statistics behind polls, she’s a great resource for me because she’s so intelligent, but she hasn’t studied polling data intensely. So, I explain things to her, and if she doesn’t understand it right away, that means I’m not explaining it well enough. That’s how I improve my writing and speaking — I know that if I’m explaining something clearly and someone doesn’t get it, there’s a gap that I need to address.
With her, if she doesn’t grasp it immediately, I know I need to adjust my explanation. That’s helped me get better at explaining things over time.
Rosner: Yes, my wife’s smart too, but her intelligence is more focused in a literary direction. She can predict what’s going to happen next on any TV show we’re watching. Yes, we have a game where we guess the next line or the next scene.
Allen: Right, I’ve talked to my wife for hours — literal hours — about my book and research. She finds it interesting, and she gives me feedback, which is helpful. She’s definitely a resource for me — the biggest resource for writing my book, no question. She’s challenged me on things, given me ideas, suggested ways to explain concepts, pointed out good and bad analogies. And that’s been invaluable because most people don’t want to help me write the book.
People want the book itself, they want the outcome. They don’t see the 1,000 pages I’ve written that had to be edited down to 300, so it flows and makes sense. She’s helped me through that process.
Rosner: So, with the election six days away, there must be a certain amount of stress in your house. My wife’s been asking, “What’s going to happen?” I’ve had to cut down on coffee because, over the past couple of weeks, I sit at my computer in the morning, and suddenly my heart is racing at 110 beats per minute as I read all the rancorous tweets and the news.
Allen: We all deal with anxiety differently. I’ve always dealt with it through research and study. Weirdly, I’m not that nervous — not because I know what’s going to happen. I do think Kamala Harris is in a good position to win, which helps me feel a bit better. But I’m aware that Trump could win. My lack of anxiety comes from accepting that it will be close, the outcome is uncertain, and there’s only so much I can do to influence it. That’s the only way I’ve been able to detach myself from the anxiety of it all. This election will probably shape not just the next four years but the next 40. The only way I’ve been able to detach myself from that reality is to look at everything as a range of outcomes and probabilities, and then do what I can to influence the outcome favorably. But, ultimately, there’s only so much we can do. So, we have to let ourselves sleep at night.
Allen: Let ourselves sleep at night. So, go ahead.
Jacobsen: There are more women voting than ever before. In your conversations with your wives, has there been any speculation or data that speaks to the gendered aspects of voting trends? For example, reproductive rights being important to many women — does that become almost the sole decider for them?
Allen: The early voting numbers definitely show a lot of women voting. But this isn’t out of the ordinary, so we have to be careful about inferring too much from it. That said, we know women are angry. More women are favoring Democrats than in previous elections. I didn’t look as far back as Obama because he won by such a large margin, but women are supporting Democrats more than in recent elections, and white women are favoring Democrats more than before.
There’s definitely something there — reproductive rights, decency, and maybe even the fact that Kamala Harris could be the first female president. I do think she’s getting more support from women because of that. Also, young voters, especially young women, are very concerned about the direction of the country. Young women, more than ever, are engaged.
If young women turn out in the numbers they could, this election wouldn’t be close. The problem is that young people, in general, aren’t as frequent voters. So, that’s definitely a cause for concern, but also maybe a cause for optimism for Democrats, especially across the swing states. The conversations I’ve had with the women in my life — my wife, my friends, my mother-in-law — it’s clear that the people I associate with share my political leanings more often than not. But there have been a lot of cases of women disowning men in their lives over political preferences. In years past, that might’ve been seen as extreme.
But as we’ve moved into this more polarized political climate — take Florida, for example, with the six-week abortion ban — it’s so extreme that women who are past that mark and have a miscarriage are often not allowed to terminate the pregnancy, putting their lives at risk. As men, we need to understand this is basic health care. This isn’t about birth control; this is essential health care for women. And here we are, three guys talking about this, so maybe we need to have some women on.
But we must protect these basic health care rights for women. This is showing up in the poll data — these extreme positions aren’t popular. I live in Ohio, and in 2023, we rejected an extreme abortion ban. States like Kansas and Kentucky did the same. Hopefully, Florida will overturn its six-week ban as well.
Allen: Yes.
Rosner: There’s a lot of work that still needs to be done, and it’s clear in the data that these extreme stances are unpopular. But in Florida, a measure needs 60% to pass, which is a very high threshold. Ohio’s measure also needed 60%, and it passed, but it’s a tough requirement for something that most people would agree is a basic health care right.
Rosner: There’s an ad out there with the message: “Your husband doesn’t know who you’re voting for.” It shows two couples at a polling place, and the men are glancing over, trying to supervise the women, but the women are ignoring them, looking at each other like, “We’re Republicans, but we’re secretly voting for Harris.”
Allen: Yes, I saw that. It’s powerful. There’s definitely intent behind those ads — not just encouraging women to vote independently of how their husbands are voting, but also making voting for Kamala Harris seem like a cool thing to do, almost like a secret act of rebellion. From an advertising standpoint, it’s powerful because it grabs your attention. But I do think it’s an effective way of reaching women, showing them that they can vote their conscience — that their husband or even their own political leanings don’t have to dictate their vote. You don’t always have to vote Republican just because you identify as one.
Allen:
Rosner: If young women turn out in the numbers they could, this election wouldn’t be close. The problem is that young people, in general, aren’t as frequent voters. So, that’s definitely a cause for concern, but also maybe a cause for optimism for Democrats, especially across the swing states. The conversations I’ve had with the women in my life — my wife, my friends, my mother-in-law — it’s clear that the people I associate with share my political leanings more often than not. But there have been a lot of cases of women disowning men in their lives over political preferences. In years past, that might’ve been seen as extreme.
Allen: Right.
Rosner: But as we’ve moved into this more polarized political climate — take Florida, for example, with the six-week abortion ban — it’s so extreme that women who are past that mark and have a miscarriage are often not allowed to terminate the pregnancy, putting their lives at risk. As men, we need to understand this is basic health care. This isn’t about birth control; this is essential health care for women. And here we are, three guys talking about this, so maybe we need to have some women on.
Allen: Absolutely.
Rosner: But we must protect these basic health care rights for women. This is showing up in the poll data — these extreme positions aren’t popular. I live in Ohio, and in 2023, we rejected an extreme abortion ban. States like Kansas and Kentucky did the same. Hopefully, Florida will overturn its six-week ban as well.
Allen: Yes.
Rosner: There’s a lot of work that still needs to be done, and it’s clear in the data that these extreme stances are unpopular. But in Florida, a measure needs 60% to pass, which is a very high threshold. Ohio’s measure also needed 60%, and it passed, but it’s a tough requirement for something that most people would agree is a basic health care right. There’s an ad out there with the message: “Your husband doesn’t know who you’re voting for.” It shows two couples at a polling place, and the men are glancing over, trying to supervise the women, but the women are ignoring them, looking at each other like, “We’re Republicans, but we’re secretly voting for Harris.”
Allen: Yes, I saw that. It’s powerful.
Rosner: There’s definitely intent behind those ads — not just encouraging women to vote independently of how their husbands are voting, but also making voting for Kamala Harris seem like a cool thing to do, almost like a secret act of rebellion. From an advertising standpoint, it’s powerful because it grabs your attention. But I do think it’s an effective way of reaching women, showing them that they can vote their conscience — that their husband or even their own political leanings don’t have to dictate their vote. You don’t always have to vote Republican just because you identify as one.
Allen: In this election, I think more than ever, we’re going to see, and this shows up in the data as A lot of traditionally Republican voters are going to cross over. You mentioned young voters, and yeah, they’re even less predictable than some other demographics because they tend to vote late. So the question is, will they vote later or not show up? That’s the hardest calculation to make.
When looking at poll data, we’re distinguishing between registered and likely voters. In the past, registered voters who didn’t vote tended to favour Democrats, but they didn’t show up. This year, we’re seeing that many Trump voters — or people who would favour Trump — are the less likely voters. It’s not in great numbers, but it’s showing up on some likely voter screens.
Yes. What’s playing out across the swing states, where we have substantial poll data, is that young people greatly favour the Democratic Party. But it’s not just young people; it’s young women. Young men also favour Kamala Harris, but not by as wide a margin. So, getting these voters to turn out is key. We’re seeing this in early voting data, where in 2020 and 2022, Democrats had huge leads. But in 2024, it’s smaller. I look at how many people have voted and how many are still likely to vote. You’d always rather have a vote banked than a vote that’s just likely.
What we’re seeing is kind of a regression to pre-COVID trends. Democrats are still voting, but fewer are voting by mail or early. The last weekend before Election Day is going to be critical. Democrats aren’t running up million-vote firewalls in Pennsylvania anymore because, number one, fewer are voting early, and number two, more Republicans are voting early. Those early Republican votes are skewing the numbers, which used to show Democrats with big leads and now have people worried.
Yes, but in reality, you can’t vote twice. So, the early vote numbers are just part of the story. If young people don’t turn out, Democrats might have a bad night, but the get-out-the-vote campaign is in full swing, and I think young voters are extremely motivated. We’ll have a better idea by Monday, as that last weekend is typically the highest for early voting.
Rosner: So, you’ve got a set of models in your head. When something happens — like a comedian at a Trump rally insults Puerto Ricans, and then three days later, Biden misspeaks and insults all MAGA supporters — does that adjust your mental model?
Allen: Not so much. Poll data will always take precedence over what I think. For example, Trump’s favorability ratings are higher than four years ago, and even though that doesn’t make sense to me, I put it in the model. I use that data to understand how undecideds might break and so on. However, with the Puerto Rican comment, each state has unique demographics. Florida, Pennsylvania, and a few other states have large Puerto Rican populations, and if those voters become more motivated, we know who they’re likely to support.
That comedian’s comment activated those communities, which are not detached from politics but may not have been as motivated until something like this happens. To their credit, the Harris campaign immediately capitalized on it and spread it widely. It was a terrible joke and a poor look for the Trump campaign. Now that these communities have been reactivated, Republicans in states like Pennsylvania might see worse numbers.
Yes, this could have a downstream effect, especially in places like Michigan and New York, where important House races are happening.
As for Biden’s comments, I don’t see them having as big of an effect. It was a bad line, and he probably misspoke, but it wasn’t Kamala Harris saying it or someone with pre-approved lines. It was an offhand comment that, even if it was as bad as it sounded…
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This post is from October 21st at 4:04 PM, aimed at the U.S. audience: “Stephen King @StephenKing should sue reality for ripping off the plot of The Stand — a plague followed by an epic confrontation between forces for good and an army of douchebags led by an evil messiah.” Rick Rosner, explain yourself.
Rick Rosner:The Stand is Stephen King’s 1,152-page epic novel in which a plague called “Captain Trips,” potentially engineered by the government, spreads worldwide and kills 99.4% of the global population. When it was written, that would have meant about 4 billion people, leaving only around 2.4 million survivors worldwide. In the story, many of the survivors in America — roughly 1% of the original population — are drawn to one of two groups.
The forces of good unite behind a heroic leader, with some survivors developing divine, satanic, or mystical powers. The good survivors gather in Boulder, Colorado, while those who align with evil follow Randall Flagg, the novel’s dark messiah, to Las Vegas. Eventually, there’s a climactic confrontation between the two sides.
In real life, we experienced the COVID-19 pandemic, which, while far from wiping out humanity, did result in the deaths of millions. While the death rate wasn’t as extreme as The Stand, it did take a substantial toll, especially among seniors. I think Donald Trump has acted as a divisive leader, though more metaphorically, representing the novel’s “evil messiah.” That was my underlying point — plus, I was hoping to get Stephen King’s attention.
I would love a like or retweet from Stephen King, though it has yet to happen. Someone else mentioned that my comparison also has elements of The Dead Zone, another Stephen King novel adapted into a movie. In The Dead Zone, a man is in a coma for several years and, when he wakes, can see visions of the future by touching people. He touches a political candidate and foresees that if this man becomes president, he will initiate a nuclear Armageddon. The hero then takes steps to prevent this from happening. I replied, “Yes, but if it were Trump, he’d fumble the baby.”
On the topic of Boulder, Stephen King lived a block or two from my high school there before he became a successful novelist. He even references Boulder landmarks in his work, like the Cliff Brice gas station and scenes from The Shining. Seeing hometown settings in popular stories is always fun. We’ll see if anything develops from this tweet tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Twitter has been pushing Joe Rogan’s latest content since Donald Trump appeared on his podcast. This caused Trump to be three hours late to a rally. His followers stood outside in the cold, waiting for him while he recorded the podcast. The interview is quickly gaining traction — there were already 2 million views within three hours.
I assume Trump probably made some controversial claims during the interview. However, these are unlikely to cost him any votes, and they might even attract more support from Rogan’s fanbase.
Jacobsen: The most views he’s ever had were 61 million, followed by 38 million. The 38 million was for Edward Snowden. Also, today, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has three Trump-appointed judges, changed the voting laws in 18 states. If their ruling stands, ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving afterward within a reasonable time may not be counted.
These judges said, “Nope,” meaning those ballots could be thrown out. Now, it has to go to the Supreme Court, and it’ll not stand because we’re only 11 days from the election. Radically changing the rules in 18 states, potentially affecting up to 80 million people, is a significant issue. Election rules are supposed to be kept the same this close to Election Day.
So, I assume the Supreme Court will reject it. People are trying to sway the electorate. Harris held a rally with Springsteen and Obama, maybe in Wisconsin, and then went down to Houston to rally with Beyoncé. Everyone’s pulling out all the stops. About 25% of voters have already cast their ballots.
Around 40 million ballots have been registered as received but have yet to be counted since they can only count the votes once polls close on Election Day. So, about 37 million ballots have been received, and another 3 million have been sent in the mail. Everyone is still going all out with October surprises and big rallies, but the election is already over 25% decided. There’s only 75% of the electorate left to persuade.
Among the most relevant and important organizations for gender equality, the rights of women and girls, and the cataloguing of rights abuse against women is UN Women. They stated the importance of critical investments in gender equality.
Numerous rights documents emphasizing gender equality consistently mention the unpaid or “unremunerated” areas of work for women. When considering inequality, we should look to accepted productivity and wealth generation metrics in a society — human activity made manifest as a utility.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Women’s unremuneratwomen work can become as much as 40 percent of the GDP in some countries. In a simplistic analysis, part of gender equality is aiming for a more even distribution of unpaid or home labour, childcare, and so on. Around the world, women and girls work more than 2.5 times as many hours per day.
What are we to make to make of these facts? Should we feel despair or do nothing? Both seem rather unproductive. Why not learn about it, take action, and see the benefits?
The full realization of men benefits the full realization of women, and vice versa. Many more disparities exist for women compared to men. However, I am not making a stereotype of victimhood since I am trying to give a statistically averaging image and then use this to provide the start for reflection on particulars. Girls and women, particularly minority and migrant women, have significant disparities in domains of low pay and unpaid work.
These can be changed.
About 80 percent of the paid domestic workers around the world are women. By this extended logic, women take part in paid domestic work more and then go home to caretaker and homecare chores than men. Naturally, it may differ for every case and should be negotiated based on temperaments and situations.
However, what can be done at the gross level of disparity to make for more equitable work? We are dealing with the right issue more than anything. Poverty can be reverse-tracked to these types of disparities.
It only seems proportional to investment in women as the collective investment is in society by default. I am not speaking to any particular woman of virtue or vice, but I am talking more about the statistical inference from the general data. More time spent on unpaid work means less time for work and income generation. This impacts lifetime earnings, increasing the chances of poverty.
Global efforts at the national level could create 300 million jobs by 2035. With the recent celebration of the International Day of Care and Support, Panama, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil passed National Care Systems established by passing laws. These can help.
UN Women said, “Kenya [used] using the data of its first national Time Use Survey to inform the development of its national care policy. We welcome the Philippines’ Caregivers Welfare Act that upholds the rights of caregivers; Spain’s approval of a strategy for a new model of long-term care in the community; and Canada’s work with provincial, territorial, and Indigenous partners to provide a high-quality, affordable, flexible, and inclusive early learning and child care system, with new investments totalling up to $30 billion over five years.”
Dr. Alon Milwicki is a senior research analyst in the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I interviewed a colleague because she was writing about religious-based identity politics. This is the basis for the idea of this interview. The term “identity politics” can be overused, making it difficult to provide a proper critique. Antisemitism is an inversion of that, where you’re not adopting an identity for political gain but instead asserting it about someone else to create unfavourable political currency for them and then relatively positive political currency for yourself. What’s your take on that? If you can tie someone to being antisemitic, especially post-October 7th, it can have severe implications.
Dr. Alon Milwicki: Antisemitism is currently a prevalent form of racism. Many populists talk about antisemitism. Labelling someone as antisemitic is a potent form of demonization, considering the context of Hamas’s actions. Accusing someone of antisemitism implies they support Hamas and terrorism. In post-9/11 America, being labelled pro-terrorist is highly damaging.
Your statement is accurate, but it can be somewhat flipped. In the effort to be the most pro-Israel, it often has nothing to do with actual Israeli politics. Most people need to familiarize themselves with Israeli politics. A recent poll showed that almost three-quarters of Israelis oppose Netanyahu, yet the entire Republican party in the US supports him. If they genuinely favour democratic societies and the will of the people, they should listen to the Israeli people rather than project their beliefs onto them.
In an attempt to prove they are so pro-Semitic, they feel the need to be extremely pro-Israel. Projecting this image of pro-Israel deflects the negative identity of antisemitism. Thus, there is identity politics surrounding antisemitism, with the pro-Israel trope being prominently displayed. You’ll likely see many Republican candidates up for reelection declaring themselves pro-America, America first, and pro-Israel.
Labelling themselves as pro-Israel has nothing to do with genuine allyship. The US and Israel are so interdependent that there is no scenario where America will not support Israel from a foreign policy perspective. Based on my limited knowledge and experiences from previous workplaces, it is highly unlikely. If these individuals in government are unaware, it indicates either a lack of diligence or dishonesty. If they are dishonest, one must question their motives. If they are simply uninformed, they ought to be better informed.
Jacobsen: Indeed. What about the lesser risk posed by state-based issues?
Milwicki: If Marjorie Taylor Greene claims to be pro-Israel but previously discussed Jewish space lasers, she should reassess her knowledge.
Jacobsen: How do you perceive American campus protests, where individuals oppose Israeli policies but support Palestinians while condemning terrorism? There is also a mix of individuals who join these protests without fully understanding the issues, potentially feeding into antisemitism. This can result in an inadvertent moral misstep towards antisemitism on the left wing.
Milwicki: The reporting on these protests often differs from the actual events. Some protests have been significantly disrupted, with certain groups attending specifically to promote their narratives. Antisemitic groups have been known to participate in these protests. For instance, the JDL, listed by the FBI as a terrorist organization, was reportedly seen at a campus protest. While this might not have been confirmed, I recall reading about it. College students’ involvement is significant. Many believe they can rekindle the civil rights movement. This is unlikely in the 21st century. Protesting is an American right and should be exercised.
Whether through sit-ins or campus protests, these activities are permissible. However, when swastikas are displayed, one must question whether this stems from ignorance or extremism. The depiction of the Israeli flag with a swastika is antisemitic. Although the swastika is shocking, its presence is generally limited. Most college protests are simply that — protests. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. However, the narrative that criticizing Israel equates to antisemitism is a right-wing construct. By this logic, 75% of Israelis would be considered antisemitic.
Following this reasoning, one must question the assumption that antisemitism began on college campuses only a few months ago. Antisemitism, racism, and misogyny have always been present on college campuses. These institutions are microcosms of society. Most college individuals are between 16 and 25 years old, forming their identities. This environment can be a breeding ground for both positive and negative behaviours. College campuses indeed reflect broader societal issues. There are valid reasons to critique the Israeli government, but this must also involve understanding Hamas. We must acknowledge the context provided by the widely circulated videos.
We have all seen the atrocities, not just those committed by Hamas, but also the bombings carried out by Israel. We need to understand that Hamas frequently uses civilian targets. They are experts in propaganda and have succeeded in the propaganda war. The only source of information many people rely on regarding the death toll in Gaza is Hamas. This does not account for those whom Hamas has endangered or killed. Netanyahu correctly pointed out that if relief aid reaches Gaza, Hamas does not distribute it to the people; they allocate it to their supporters and themselves. This is typical behaviour for a terrorist organization, and it must be understood that the first victims of Hamas are the Palestinians.
Palestinians have been victims of Hamas for nearly 20 years, living under a terrorist regime that controls all aspects of their lives. This needs to be recognized. However, eliminating Hamas does not mean the destruction of Palestine or the erasure of Palestinian identity. It also does not grant Israel the freedom to act without restraint. I am not a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, but as a historian who has studied antisemitism for many years, I have a basic understanding of Hamas and Israel, which is necessary to grasp how these issues are appropriated or misused.
I do not oppose campus protests and do not believe they should be banned. Organizations like SJP and BLM should have the right to protest. While some activists have made inappropriate statements, this does not justify banning their protests. Regardless of one’s perspective, certain activists say problematic things. For example, right-wing activists often make offensive remarks. One could argue that the right’s current focus on antisemitism, particularly after October 7th, is an attempt to shift the narrative back to the post-9/11 era, emphasizing Islamic terrorism as the primary threat despite FBI statistics showing that white supremacy and far-right groups are the largest domestic terrorist threats in America.
This narrative shift involves using Israel to further their agenda. This is a novel point, and I appreciate you mentioning it, Scott. I used to tell my students that my role was to impart wisdom, and their role was to record it. It may sound trivial, but hopefully, it addresses your question. College campuses are easy targets for such narratives, but this does not mean that problematic behaviour does not occur there. Antisemitic incidents do happen within these protests. However, condemning all colleges or universities is unjustified. The United States has many prestigious institutions that attract students and professors worldwide, although recent trends may affect this. Those who claim to be First Amendment purists should question why they are so keen on limiting freedom of expression and education.
Jacobsen: That is an important point to consider. I cannot think of a better way to conclude this discussion.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Skeptic Society Magazine
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Candace Gorham is the President of the American Humanist Association. She spoke with Canadian humanist and journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen for a recent interview.
Gorham is a licensed mental health counsellor and author of The Ebony Exodus Project: Why Some Black Women Are Walking Out on Religion–and Others Should Tooand On Death, Dying, and Disbelief. She is a former ordained minister turned atheist activist, researcher, and writer on religion, secular social justice, and the African-American community. She is also a member of the Secular Therapist Project and The Clergy Project.
Gorham discussed the state of humanism post-election, particularly within African American communities. She discussed the general tone of distress among humanists due to Trump’s popular vote win and its implications for America. She emphasized the need for proactive activism, combating Christian Nationalism, and supporting affected communities. Gorham highlighted the unfamiliarity with humanism among Black communities and the opportunity for growth by reaching out and supporting those leaving religion but seeking meaning. She also noted the potential challenges with misinformation and the popularity of alternative beliefs like astrology and crystals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today [Editor’s Note: this interview took place in November 2024], Candace Gorham joins us to discuss various aspects of humanism in the immediate aftermath of the American election. The Republicans appear to have won significantly, which is concerning for many humanists, given their policies and the people within their circles.
Over the past few days, what is the general tone and feeling within American humanist communities based on what you are observing?
Candace Gorham: I would start with my immediate circle of friends and family. Many people are troubled, and there is a palpable sense of despair. I met with some staff today, and confusion and distress were evident. People are puzzled by how former President Trump managed to win again despite being considered offensive by many. The most unsettling aspect for many is that he won the popular vote this time, which has left people questioning their neighbors’ and friends’ beliefs.
Previously, when Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, it was easier to rationalize it as a quirk of the system. However, this time, there has been talk of a “red wave” and the unexpected loss of many Democratic strongholds. As I mentioned, people are mostly disturbed about what this signifies for the United States today. What does this say about the country we live in? It is distressing.
Jacobsen: Political activism, policy advocacy, and related efforts are also questioned. What is your approach to addressing this situation from a proactive, activist perspective for the American Humanist Association?
Gorham: Many members of our organization are eager to fight and engage in policy work, advocacy, and volunteerism. From our staff to our chapters and affiliates, individuals are ready to stand up and contribute to meaningful efforts. We are currently working on determining how we can best support them.
When I say “we,” I am referring to leadership, as we focus on finding ways to support our members and anyone seeking our assistance. How can we provide support in this moment of shock and despair? Furthermore, what can we do moving forward when it is time to engage in sustained activism? We have the staff capable of leading that charge, especially with our new Executive Director Fish Stark.
Jacobsen: Some issues will be more immediately relevant when targeting different areas for this work. Where do you see the most immediate impacts for humanist communities? Will it be focused on reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ rights? Or will it focus more on direct church-state separation and related issues?
Gorham: Yes, I would say that we need to find that balance again because so many people—women, LGBTQ+ individuals, men who support women’s rights—are affected and hurting in their everyday lives. As an organization, the AHA wants to craft a way to support people in dealing with their feelings of angst. At the same time, we want to provide a space for them to channel some of that energy. One of the significant focuses—without putting words in our Executive Director’s mouth—is fighting against Christian Nationalism.
Jacobsen: So, is that where we will see more of the work being done—focusing on church-state separation and combating White Christian Nationalism that has become pervasive and is part of why we are where we are today?
Gorham: Yes, that will be a major focus moving forward.
Jacobsen: As a licensed mental health counsellor, what would you recommend for young people who are experiencing their first major political shocks to consider for maintaining their mental health while potentially using that energy to become more proactive rather than staying in despair?
Gorham: Yes, I will share what I’ve been reminding myself today. The United States has been through ugly, dark times—nasty and frightening. Yet, we have survived and, in many cases, strengthened and improved. I keep telling myself that the institutions built over time—our Constitution, our organizations, and the structures that uphold American ideals—have been battered, bruised, and tested before. I am hopeful that they will hold once again because they have withstood challenges in the past. I encourage people to remember that we have weathered dark times before and emerged stronger, continuing to move forward and improve.
On a more personal note, I advise people to do what I did last night: have my daughter come over and spend time with friends, family, and support groups. Engage in activities that keep you connected and away from being alone, watching cable news, or endlessly scrolling through TikTok and feeling more overwhelmed. Surrounding yourself with supportive people or those who want to take action and who want to be involved in activism is essential. Whether it’s volunteer work or attending a march (and I am sure there will be many in the months to come), finding ways to channel anxiety and frustration can make a significant difference. It may help you feel more empowered and better able to cope.
Engage in activities; don’t just watch what is being discussed or happening passively. Participate in some way, even if it’s something as small as getting together with friends for a book club or similar activities. Or, if you feel up to it, do activist work, get out there on the streets, canvass, knock on doors, and do whatever you can.
Jacobsen: You wrote The Ebony Exodus Project—it’s been eleven/twelve years. So, what is the current status of what we can call The Ebony Exodus Project?
Gorham: In general, the number of Black women who identify as spiritual, religious, or Christian is still high, especially if we include not just Christianity but spirituality and belief in a divine entity or supernatural beliefs. At the time I wrote The Ebony Exodus Project, about 86% of Black women in America identified as Christians. From what I recall from the most recent Pew report I read, even though it’s a few years old, those numbers are still in the 80% range.
Anecdotally, from my experience as a Black woman in the Black community and from conversations with other women I know, there is a shift happening, particularly among younger women—by younger, I mean fifty and under. These women are moving away from organized religion and are creating their spiritual meanings and practices. One of the things I find interesting is that even among non-believers or those who consider themselves atheists, there is an increasing belief in horoscopes and crystals.
This trend, which I consider somewhat supernatural, is what I am seeing everywhere, and it distresses me even more than the Christianity I left behind. At least with Christianity, there were tangible aspects you could challenge, like the Bible or scientific claims. But how do you challenge horoscopes or crystals? Suppose someone believes that a crystal on their forehead will cure a headache. In that case, engaging them in critical thinking becomes more challenging.
I even have family members who, for lack of a better term, I describe as “woo-woo.” They are into crystals, horoscopes, and similar things. I always push back and ask, “Have you read anything about this beyond a TikTok video? Have you considered opinions from someone who doesn’t believe that horoscopes are real?”
And many people, and this ties back to the election, face the issue of disinformation and misinformation in America and probably worldwide. People get their news from social media in little one- to three-minute sound bites, memes, and similar formats. They need to get a complete picture of what is happening around them. This is also true when it comes to religion and supernatural beliefs.
Jacobsen: What about the state of humanism generally within an African American context? Is there increasing comfort and space for individuals coming out of the Black church? Or is it a repetition of past community mistakes, where there isn’t an open, authentic space for people to bring their cultural narratives and individual stories into a humanist space, leaving behind religion while taking on humanist values in the context of their subculture within the United States?
Gorham: I would say that a significant portion of the Black community is still largely unfamiliar with humanism and humanist thought. I remember when I was younger, in college, learning about humanism in the context of 17th and 18th-century writers who discussed it. At that time, I thought, “Oh, humanism. This isn’t Christian. This is the belief that we only have each other and must do good among ourselves.” It wasn’t considered a Christian way of thinking, so the term “humanism” was, and to some still is, a dirty word.
It’s almost synonymous with atheism for some people. Humanism is still a “dirty word” for those who know what it means, while the vast majority probably don’t even know the term. I believe this area has growth potential—how we reach out to more diverse communities that may have never heard of humanism. When I first got into the movement and wrote The Ebony Exodus Project twelve years ago, I often heard Black people say, “I never even heard the word atheist.” They didn’t know what it meant. Humanism is even less known. When I tell people, “Yes, I’m an atheist, but I’m also a humanist, and my humanism informs my ethics,” I often get, “Well, what’s that?”
People are starting to become more familiar with the term “atheist” or “non-believer,” but “humanist” is still not widely recognized. This is a major opportunity for our organization. Even those who believe in horoscopes and crystals still want a moral compass to guide them in understanding good, bad, right, or wrong. They may turn to astrology because they crave something that helps them build meaning.
When the American Humanist Association finds a way to communicate with these individuals effectively, it will be a significant breakthrough and a valuable resource. Many in the Black community are moving away from structured religion but are still seeking something to fill that void. That’s where we can step in and start to provide that support.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Regarding culturally identifiable figures, there are you, Ayanna Watson, Mandisa Thomas, Sikivu Hutchinson, and Debbie Goddard. There aren’t too many individuals who are necessarily recognizable as Black women humanists. It’s improving in terms of having leading voices, but to your point, incorporating more is necessary. Do you have any upcoming literary works or activities that people should be on the lookout for?
Gorham: As the new president, I’m trying to get my bearings with the organization. I’m new, and we have a new Executive Director. Much work needs to be done to get things rolling again. I’m not currently focusing on anything outside of that. I do have some book ideas percolating in the background. Still, I have yet to start on any of them because my current focus is supporting our new Executive Director and helping achieve some of his goals.
Jacobsen: Candace, thank you for your time and the opportunity to talk.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Skeptic Society Magazine
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/13
Mubarak Bala, a humanist in Nigeria, was recently released from prison for what amounts to charges of blasphemy. In an interview with Canadian humanist Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Balareflects on his unjust detention, emphasizing that freedom of expression and belief are crucial for justice and progress. He describes Nigeria’s escalating religious extremism, persecution of humanists, and threats to secularism. Bala highlights the global need to abolish blasphemy laws and the challenges humanists face, particularly in their struggle to stay alive. He advocates for political action, media reform, and international lobbying to promote secularism. Bala plans to run for Nigeria’s presidency in 2031. He expresses joy at reuniting with his family while condemning systemic injustice. His resilience underscores the importance of safeguarding human rights and free thought worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has (unjust) experience shaped your views on the importance of freedom of expression and belief in fostering a just society?
Mubarak Bala: Well, even before my unfair abduction and kidnapping, I have always known that the world I live in is not free; it is a world full of cruelty and menace to freedom and innovation; this is why it took millennia to manage life as it came, while societies that allowed that singular civil right, flourished and prospered, which seeped through time and ushered in the modern science and free inquiry that we enjoy today, which ultimately changed the destiny of our species and planet.
The fact that I was abducted only confirmed to me and folks that it is a long way to go for many countries and many societies, but whereas some sane cultures have already made it unfair and illegal to disallow free thought and free beliefs, others have chosen the path to cruelty, perversion, persecution, poverty and unnecessary harm to life.
This is glaring and evident in my immediate society, the north of Nigeria, where we’re most unsafe, from local governments agitating and mongering for the Shari’a and Jihadism. Sadly, the Federal Forces are on the dangerous pathway to expand this nationwide, jettisoning the secular federal constitution, albeit without a constitutional amendment or a national referendum.
Free thought is super important; free speech is the beginning of fairness and justice and any meaningful social cohesion of all members of any nation or society or conglomerates of nations such as Nigeria. It is these values that would shape our future and preserve the fragile peace, thereby perpetuating the country; otherwise, it would spiral down the blackhole of anarchy and civil war; sadly, we’ve been on that trajectory for two decades now, and it seems no one sees the path, none but few, such as I.
The Islamists brought us sharia, and then gradually, they brought us jihadism and jihadists, who are activists for the Shari’a. This bred terrorism and banditry, which is threatening to consume all of us. They seek to silence dissent and voices of reason, they seek to dominate, they seek to appease jihadists and their paymasters, they seek to appease non-existent gods and deities, and they are ready to murder for the glory of cultures far away, both in time and in mileage. They do this, and the world could only write, nothing much could be done, because, the world confuses Muslimophobia with Islamophobia, the two are distinct and can be understood by any rational person.
Now, there must be peace in the world. That peace cannot manifest without freedoms for women, thinkers, and all members of the community or society, and justice for the fringe members of any community, be they minorities by tribe, race, religion, sect, or social standing/class. The pathway is simple. However, it takes only courageous governments, politicians, policymakers, international bodies and actors, and the direct victims themselves to these tragedies.
Jacobsen: What challenges for humanists in Nigeria seem the most significant in online and offline spaces now?
Bala: Challenges for humanists at the moment are vast and numerous, intricate and intertwining cascades of cards and mazes. Sadly, we can’t solve any of them while dead, and since we’re actively being sought to be murdered by lone actors, by our governments, by vigilante and sharia police, then we can’t and haven’t started solving any of these problems with all the attention, resources and energy we could, because we’re busy trying not to die. It’s that simple. We are battling daily challenges to stay alive, then probably seek other fairness and justice as well for our members and the fringe, especially those made illegal by the governments for populism.
You may notice that over the decade or more, I suffered incarcerations, death threats, and attempted lobotomy; no one else has ever been arrested or punished by my tormentors and bullies, no one. Many of them have already murdered our kind, or Christians and minority sects, but the governors pay compensation to the victim’s families and set the culprits free.
Jacobsen: Why do you believe freedom of expression is a cornerstone of humanism?
Bala: The cornerstone for humanism is remaining alive. Everything else comes second. Therefore, freedom of speech, thought, or belief is second to that, at least in Nigeria.
So, perhaps freedom of expression is the cornerstone of humanism in the West, but in our climes, the right to life after changing beliefs is our paramount cornerstone or priority.
Jacobsen: What lessons can be drawn from imprisonment in restrictive environments? What is the role of humanist organizations in defending freedom of expression?
Bala: Lessons that can be drawn from imprisonment in restrictive environments:
Living another day, and never dying is one thing, but also,
Utilize the idle time to expand your knowledge and
Try and keep your sanity and health, especially your mental and physical health. They try to engage you spiritually, but you know that is all crap since it’s about mythology and illogical dialogues, so you skip that. Instead, you exercise and eat well, that’s if you can find the food, though.
I also learnt that in our environment, prison is only for the lower class, the poor and, the sick and the old; no rich person stays in prison for long. Many resources go via envelopes under the table, justice is for sale.
Most importantly, stand your ground. I was converted to my former religion by force, but the moment I had access to a lawyer, I refused to bow down again.
I also learnt that family is important, and not all you thought were family are. You may be born of the same womb, of the same woman or loins, but your actual siblings may be oceans away from you, connected by the internet, by humanity, and by the philosophy that all born must live free and that there is no limit to the resources and time that they could expend to see you free, to see justice done.
Jacobsen: How can we protect other cases of humanists at risk, e.g., Ahmadreza Djalali, Andrea Gilbert, Asaduzzaman Noor, Ashraf Fayadh, Atheists in Kenya Society, George Gavriel, Gáspár Békés, Gulalai Ismail, Indika Rathnayaka, Leena Manimekalai, Leo Igwe, Mahmoud Jama Ahmed, Mohamed Hisham, Mohamed Rusthum Mujuthaba, Mohammed Ould Shaikh Ould Mkhaitir, Mommad, M.M. Kalburgi, Narendra Dabholkar, Narendra Nayak, Panayote Dimitras, Raif Badawi, Rishvin Ismath, Saïd Djabelkhir, Shakthika Sathkumara, and Soheil Arabi?
Bala: We could protect humanists at risk by ending intolerance, meaning editing out inedible texts called or deemed holy. These are what leads to the murders or the government torment of individuals and families. They do this because they believe they are obeying some deity, that they’re the good people and you’re the bad.
The difference between terrorists and criminals is that criminals know they’re wrong and are feeling the guilt, one way or another. Terrorists have a clear conscience and believe that no matter what pain or blood they spill, they’re doing the right thing and that they’re the victims if they are allowed to carry out these atrocities.
Jacobsen: How will this Nigerian case impact the global conversation about blasphemy laws or quasi-blasphemy legal contexts?
Bala: I believe that we could at least say the West now received a nudge, a prod, or a small jolt to end all blasphemy laws and find a way to sanction countries that mete these atrocities on their citizens. Mind you, it’s not just my case. At least I didn’t die. Count the many that didn’t make it, be it in Iran, Arabia, Somalia, Malaysia, or Afghanistan. I should say I’m lucky, but we must end blasphemy laws around the world, then go on and end the Shari’a, as it has no place in modern societies. You guys confuse the fanatics that there must be freedom of religion and belief globally, and so, they also think that since their dogma is also part of the world religions, their ‘peace’ must be global. This means they have the right to misogyny and patriarchy; they have the right to kill nonbelievers; they also feel that it is their right, right of belief, to keep women locked up.
Jacobsen: How can international humanist movements effectively challenge laws and practices?
Bala: The international humanist community could lobby where there are democracies, coalesce where there are no freedoms, to form alliances and communities to protect themselves.
We must also join politics, effect change, and bring about secularism in governance. I, for one, will run for president in Nigeria in 2031 and radically change my country, which is on a dangerous trajectory.
I have already had about half a decade to work out my plans. Now, it’s time to start the action. I’ll leave my country for a while, then strategize and seek resources and partners and pressure my country to start asking the right questions, the national question, have a referendum and a new constitution; then we’ll see which direction to go: allow Talibanistan to go and form their country? Or join Nigeria in actual progress?
Jacobsen: What is the balance between respecting religious beliefs and protecting the right to question or critique those beliefs?
Bala: Balance between respecting religious beliefs and protecting rights to question…
In all sincerity, there is nothing about respecting faith and dogma and indoctrination or misogyny and terrorism; I cannot respect the Shari’a nor the Jihad, and never the book that asked man to murder man. There’s no two ways about it. I already mentioned earlier that Muslimophobia is wrong, while Islamophobia is legit and must be encouraged. Simple.
Jacobsen: What strategies are most effective for promoting humanism and secularism?
Bala: Strategies for promoting humanism by activism, speaking, networking, and forming communities where we protect ourselves.
Jacobsen: What is the future of humanism and freedom of expression in Nigeria?
Bala: At the moment, I’d say it’s doomed. This is why I have to leave, strategize and return; I have plans to start a Media House focused on Nigeria, West Africa, the Sahel Belt, and sub-Saharan Africa, in all languages involved, because the mainstream media assigned these jobs have failed us, failed miserably…
Jacobsen: How is your wife and family? How is it to see your kids again?
Bala: My wife and child are fine and healthy. We’re slowly reconnecting and recovering and counting our losses and hoping that this is the last time I suffer this misadventure orchestrated by my family and government. Seeing my kid again balanced out all the losses I incurred all this while.
Jacobsen: What were Leo Igwe’s first words?
Bala: The first call I received from the police custody in Kaduna was Leo’s call, but before I could discuss anything with him, the phone was seized; even though other inmates were allowed contact with family, legal services and associates—but not I, not for almost a year. And a further year before, I saw the courtroom. While rapists and murderers and terrorists were going for trials, getting bail, acquittals and even accolades showered on them, I was slowly dying and maligned in the hope that I acquiesced, but I didn’t. Never would. Never will.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for the opportunity and your time, Mubarak. We finally got that interview!
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: February 27, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: March 1, 2025
Abstract
Randy Economy, chairman of Saving California, discusses the leadership failures of Governor Gavin Newsom in managing California’s wildfire crisis. He highlights the widespread devastation in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, where entire communities have been destroyed. Economy emphasizes the urgent need for stronger wildfire prevention policies, including increased firefighting resources and improved disaster preparedness. He shares a personal story of loss, illustrating the resilience of affected residents. The recall campaign aims to collect 1.3 million signatures within 160 days to remove Newsom from office. Economy criticizes the governor’s misaligned priorities and calls for decisive leadership. He concludes with a message of unity and determination, stressing the importance of collective action to bring meaningful change to California.
This interview explores the catastrophic impact of California’s wildfire crisis and the perceived leadership failures of Governor Gavin Newsom. Randy Economy, chairman of Saving California, provides an in-depth analysis of the destruction in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, describing the loss of entire communities and the need for immediate policy reforms. Drawing from firsthand experiences, Economy discusses the challenges faced by affected residents and the emotional toll of witnessing such devastation. He also delves into the political ramifications, detailing the recall campaign against Newsom and advocating for a shift in leadership to ensure California is better prepared for future disasters. Through this conversation, Economy underscores the importance of accountability, policy-driven solutions, and grassroots mobilization to address ongoing wildfire threats and safeguard communities.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Randy Economy
Section 1: Leadership Failures and Wildfire Devastation
Randy Economy, chairman of Saving California, discusses the catastrophic failure of leadership by Governor Gavin Newsom in handling California’s wildfires. He highlights the devastation in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, where entire communities have been wiped out. Mr. Economy emphasizes the need for stronger wildfire prevention policies, including increased firefighting resources. He recounts a personal story of loss, underscoring the resilience of affected residents. The recall campaign aims to collect 1.3 million signatures within 160 days. Economy criticizes Newsom’s priorities and calls for focused leadership. He concludes with a message of unity and determination to bring real change to California.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you very much for joining me today, Randy. Today, we are here with Randy Economy. He is the chairman of Saving California.
Randy Economy: Thank you very much. This will be published later, but the featured speakers at today’s press conference will include Mel Gibson and Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez. Many people recognize Mel Gibson from films such as The Passion of the Christ, Braveheart, and Lethal Weapon.
Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez is the founder of Churches in Action. Many concerns have been raised about the handling of the recent wildfires in California. While some aspects were beyond human control, there were also significant failures in management and response.
What are the key points you want to communicate at today’s event?
Section 2: The Recall Campaign Against Gavin Newsom
Randy Economy: There is one chief executive officer for California—the governor. The responsibility for managing disasters, ensuring public safety, and overseeing state agencies ultimately falls on him. What we saw was a catastrophic failure of leadership by Governor Gavin Newsom. He is accountable for this crisis.
No one bears more responsibility than he does. Whether it was the neglect of power lines—which, while we do not know the exact cause of the fire, fall under state oversight—or the broader mismanagement of emergency preparedness, these are leadership failures. The state of California is responsible for ensuring that infrastructure is maintained and that responses to disasters are swift and effective.
What happened in Altadena is heartbreaking. Yesterday, we met with Bishop Mendez, Mel Gibson, and myself to visit some of the impacted areas. The level of devastation is overwhelming. Driving through the main boulevard in the southern part of Altadena, you can see entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes. It is completely unrecognizable.
Entire communities have been wiped out. Whether they will be rebuilt remains uncertain, as many residents have lost everything. Yesterday, we held a press event on the property of a woman born in her house 97 years ago.
Her family had lived there for five generations. Tragically, one of her family members perished in the fire. Now, that home is gone, along with everything around it. When you walk through these areas, you do not just feel sorrow—you feel a deep sense of loss and devastation unlike anything I have ever experienced.
Yesterday was an incredibly emotional day. Mel Gibson was outstanding—he spoke from the heart about what these communities are going through. That is who he is. He did not hold back, and he did not sugarcoat the reality of the situation. The same was true for Bishop Mendez.
He delivered a heartfelt message. Many of his parishioners have lost their homes, their livelihoods, and, in some cases, loved ones. Yesterday’s event was not just about speeches; it was about prayer, support, and coming together as a community.
Then, in a heartbreaking turn, Bishop Mendez collapsed. His heart stopped, and he had to receive immediate medical attention. It was a terrifying moment that added another layer of grief to an already tragic day.
But he’s on the road to recovery, and hopefully, he’ll be released today or tomorrow. It was a very emotional day. But I think we understand what this campaign is and is not about. It is not just about saying, “Oh, let’s do a recall to get rid of a bad politician.” It is more significant than that. This is our last stand, so to speak.
This is not about derailing his potential presidential campaign—it is about removing him from office. Some argue that by the time a recall reaches the ballot, he will only have about a year and a half left in his term.
But do you know how much damage the chief executive of a state like California—the fifth-largest economy in the world—can do in just 24 hours, let alone 18 months? That is why we are focused and on target. This time, not only will the recall get on the ballot, but he will be removed from office as governor.
Section 3: Emotional Toll and Community Resilience
Jacobsen: And with Bishop Mendez being part of yesterday’s event, were cathedrals, churches, or other church-affiliated properties affected by the fire? Not in terms of personal property, but as public church properties?
Economy: That beautiful community in Altadena was heavily impacted. A few pastors who oversaw congregations in the area were present, joining us in prayer.
When Bishop Mendez collapsed, everything stopped. The event was essentially over at that moment. You cannot simply continue after something like that happens—you must give your full attention to helping save that man’s life.
Thank God for the paramedics. I also thank God for intervening and doing His work and will to save that man. This will give us the right energy to move forward, even in the face of such darkness and loss.
Tens of thousands of people have lost absolutely everything. And when I say tens of thousands, I am talking about entire families and communities. Everyone knows someone personally who has lost everything.
This is not just a critical moment in California’s politics. His butt is a defining moment in American political history. We do not take what we are doing lightly.
Jacobsen: I am calling from British Columbia, where most of the population lives in the southern part of the province, close to the U.S. border. But much of the province experiences similar challenges—we face large wildfires yearly, and the struggle to manage them is ongoing.
I was glad that some Canadians could come down, fly in, and provide help during this time of need. Fires are indiscriminate. They do not care whether you are Republican, Independent, or Democrat.
Economy: That has been emblematic of what we learned from this fire.
Section 4: Policy Solutions for Wildfire Prevention
Jacobsen: What has been particularly heartwarming for you regarding people coming together—regardless of their background, political stance, or religious beliefs—to support one another and express their concerns politically and socially?
Economy: A Catholic priest once told me something that stuck with me. About 20 years ago, right around the time I was deeply involved in Catholicism at the age of 45, I also lost everything in a house fire. I was completely distraught and devastated.
I remember meeting a priest from Vietnam who was conducting a healing mass. We decided to go because we needed spiritual support. He told me, “You may not understand this right now, but sometimes with fire comes blessings.” I did not know what he meant at the time, but now I do.
When I look at the people in the Palisades and Altadena, I see that they want hope. They are looking for a glimmer of kindness. They want to feel that their stories and lives matter. And yet, if you looked around yesterday, no one was there to help them.
Not one person from the Catholic Baptist movement assembled an aid network in their neighbourhoods—no trailers, no 24-hour relief efforts.
The governor is long gone. He has moved on to something else. Now, he is focused on a new podcast or another vanity project. That is who he is as a leader. We hate to say he is just an empty suit, but the truth is, he is.
He does not care about the people—he cares about himself and his ambitions of becoming President of the United States. And yet, again, sometimes, with fire comes blessing.
That is what we are trying to focus on—the positive. Yesterday, we nearly lost one of our biggest supporters in this recall effort—Bishop Mendez. His heart stopped. So, we do not take this lightly. We see this as a mission now.
We are more united and determined than ever to do what needs to be done—getting the mechanics right and ensuring that people sign the petition. To trigger the election, we need about 1.3 million signatures within a 160-day period, which could happen by mid-summer or even earlier. It is only late February now.So, we are doing much of the work that needs to be done. And I think sometimes, you have to take that responsibility upon yourself.
Section 5: A Call to Action for Californians
Jacobsen: Regarding policy changes, leadership can shift, but certain policies can have long-lasting effects. What policy changes are necessary to make wildfire protections more robust in California?
Economy: It starts with having the basic resources to fight these fires effectively. We live in a desert. California is a fire-prone state that burns constantly. If we need a fleet of 40 massive jets and planes to use as water scoopers, we must invest in them and pay for that. If we are willing to spend $40 billion, like Gavin Newsom wants to, on some vague effort to “reimagine California”—whatever that means—then we should ensure we have the fundamental resources to protect people’s health, safety, and welfare.
We live in a state continuously battling wildfires, yet we do not have the necessary infrastructure or capabilities to fight even small-scale fires effectively, let alone the massive, months-long infernos we see now. Wildfires in California do not last for days anymore—they last for months. While the fires in the Palisades are now officially 100% contained, the devastation they left behind is only just beginning for the people who have lost their homes, livelihoods, and, in some cases, loved ones.
Jacobsen: Sir, thank you for your time and the opportunity to discuss this. I appreciate it. It was nice to meet you.
Economy: God bless you. Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Discussion
The interview with Randy Economy underscores the severe impact of California’s wildfires and the broader implications of inadequate disaster management. The devastation in Altadena and Pacific Palisades exemplifies the escalating wildfire crisis in the state, where entire communities have been displaced, homes reduced to ashes, and lives irrevocably altered. Economy attributes this crisis to a failure of leadership, particularly under Governor Gavin Newsom, who, he argues, has not prioritized wildfire prevention and emergency preparedness at the necessary scale.
A key theme in the discussion is the need for proactive wildfire prevention strategies. Economy highlights the lack of adequate firefighting resources, pointing out that California’s existing infrastructure is insufficient to combat large-scale wildfires effectively. He advocates for substantial investments in water-scooping aircraft, stronger regulations on power lines, and more aggressive forest management practices to mitigate fire risks before they escalate into disasters. The discussion suggests that leadership decisions at the state level have significant consequences, particularly in a fire-prone region where inadequate planning can result in catastrophic losses.
Another critical aspect of the conversation is the political movement toward recalling Governor Newsom. Economy views the recall campaign as a necessary corrective action, arguing that Newsom’s administration has failed to provide competent governance during multiple crises. He emphasizes that beyond political affiliation, the recall is about ensuring accountability and leadership that prioritizes public safety. The campaign’s goal of collecting 1.3 million signatures in 160 days reflects growing discontent among Californians who seek more effective governance in managing environmental disasters.
The discussion also reveals the emotional and social impact of wildfires on affected communities. Economy recounts a particularly poignant moment when Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez collapsed at a relief event, illustrating the emotional weight of the crisis. The resilience of fire survivors, however, stands as a testament to human endurance in the face of adversity. While Economy critiques the lack of immediate governmental response, he also highlights grassroots efforts, including faith-based organizations and volunteers stepping in where state support has been insufficient.
Lastly, the interview raises questions about long-term policy reforms. While leadership changes may shift priorities, the underlying issue remains the need for a sustainable, well-funded wildfire prevention and emergency response system. The conversation suggests that beyond partisan debates, what California truly needs is a strategic, long-term commitment to fire mitigation, infrastructure investment, and emergency management reform to prevent future tragedies.
Ultimately, Economy’s perspective presents a call to action—urging both policymakers and citizens to demand stronger leadership, better preparedness, and a commitment to protecting California’s communities from recurring wildfire disasters.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Randy Economy for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California. March 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, March 1). Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (March 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Randy Economy on California, Fires, Mel Gibson, Bishop Mendez, and Gavin Newsome: Chairman, Saving California [Internet]. 2025 Mar;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/randy-economy
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: Late 2024/Early 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 22, 2025
Abstract
The conversation reveals a multifaceted understanding of human mating and dating practices—one that spans practical considerations, emotional intimacy, and long‐term compatibility. Participants highlighted that initial physical attraction and shared interests may spark a connection, yet it is the evolution of shared values, consistent communication, and adaptability over time that truly fortifies a relationship. There is consensus that while factors such as intellectual parity and socioemotional sensitivity can set the stage, the challenges inherent in life—ranging from evolving personal goals to the pressures of familial responsibilities—demand ongoing effort and mutual growth. The dialogue underscores that commitment, be it through legal, ceremonial, or informal unions, must be continually nurtured. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that successful partnerships rely on a balanced blend of cognitive compatibility, shared values, and the resilience to adapt as individuals change over time.
This interview gathers insights from a diverse group of individuals, each reflecting on the intricate dance of mating and dating in modern society. Anchored in a candid discussion that blends personal experience with broader cultural observations, the session explores how factors like intellectual congruence, socioemotional compatibility, and shared values contribute to the sustainability of both short-term pairings and long-term relationships. Participants—ranging from those with decades of marital experience to individuals navigating contemporary relationship dynamics—offer perspectives on everything from the role of traditional marriage to the evolving nature of personal identity and family planning. By examining these themes, the interview not only illuminates the complexities of choosing and nurturing a partner but also invites readers to consider how enduring love is shaped by continual adaptation and mutual commitment.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani
Section 1: Pairing
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time for this short session on mating and dating amongst some smart people, these are intended for you and, if desired and if time, your partner too. Length of responses are entirely up to you. The focus is mating and dating here. “Mating,” the partnering part either by common law, marriage, or something equivalently formalized in some sense up to and including having children. “Dating,” the search and dance of finding someone or some people who fit well with your gender identity, sexual orientation, various belief commitments, emotional and intellectual proclivities, and the like. Regarding life goals and values, what seems, in an overview, essential to consider in a partner for intended short-term pairings and long-term relationships? The idea being: the image and goals, realistic and not, one has for one’s life vis-a-vis a partner.
David Quinn: Well I am a straight male and sought a straight female. Got married just over 30 years ago, same partner now. I had been dating another woman before, but left her when I met my future wife with whom the match was much better. In my view marriage is about the children, carrying on the line, so fertility and heritable traits including intelligence are important, but so is sexual attraction. I was sexually attracted to my wife.
She is fully my equal intellectually. We met in a PhD program at a good university, probably the only couple to have graduated from that program. We also agree on most social issues. But we are from far distant places, different countries.
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: In the initial period, you find the answers you need about whether, in my case, she is someone worth pursuing, meaning investing time in, and gradually making the assessments that naturally follow in the wake of invested time. Relationships are like most other things – you need to walk some miles before you can form an opinion about whether the investment was worth it or not. Love usually doesn’t take into account the human parameters; they emerge as time progresses. So when the “fog” if you can call it that, has settled, then what you’re looking for here appears. Or, as one can more easily describe as “everyday life,” when it kicks in, then and only then do the criteria – whether one fits or not, whether you’re compatible or not – stand the test. It’s only then, regardless of short-term or long-term.
Mrs. Jorgensen: Everything that appears in the beginning is all the beautiful but fleeting things; it’s only when the dust has settled and everyday life sets in that you see who still stands there. Those are the ones who meet all the criteria that were set.
Matthew Scillitani: I’ve never had any desire for a short-term pairing. But for long-term relationships, it’s very important that we have similar ideas surrounding kids, religion, politics, day-to-day relationship dynamics like chores, professional work, and (frequency/type of) romantic outings.
Personally, I want 2 to 4 kids and aspire to raise them in a mostly apolitical environment, both at home and school. Actually, kids spend most of their time at school, so it’s important to make sure they’re attending a good one. For day-to-day things, I prefer cooking and doing outside chores, and would preferably want to go on at least one romantic outing per week.
Casey Scillitani: Matt and I met online. So, before we even saw each other, we had already talked about our political and philosophical values. At the time, we also shared our mental health struggles and were up front about everything, talking for hours through text. This made it so that we didn’t have any surprises down the line because we’d already said everything from the start. Sometimes, even now, we communicate best through text.
Section 2: Matching
Jacobsen: Leta Hollingworth posited a plus or minus two standard deviation communication gap in cognitive ability. Too high or too low for interlocutors then the fidelity of conversation becomes too different to maintain it–let’s call this hypothesis cognitive ability congruence. This seems discussed amongst various high-IQ communities. Similarly for socioemotional sensitivities and skills, maybe, a similar hypothesis exists for these, in a different domain, too. In general terms, does this seem like a real factor in the area of intimacy and relationships–matching of mind and emotions for entrance into and sustainability of a relationship?
Quinn: We think mostly alike and respect/fear each other’s ability. A small fraction of a standard deviation one way or the other, if we took some suitable test. We learn from each other and tend to end in the same place on just about every issue. I didn’t seek this aspect and had heard that opposites attract, but it happened that I got similarity. It probably makes life smoother, given how strongly we hold opinions about many things.
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: Meeting each other cognitively, or socio-emotionally, can in many cases play a major role, and can certainly in many cases follow an exponential atypical development, resulting in a premature breakup. However, there are relationships that flourish contrary to what would be predicted to end in certain termination. A relationship based on pure love will overcome everything. If one looks beyond the mental barriers that can quickly form, one discovers the underlying values, those that you build upon further. It is then that relationships become lasting.
Mrs. Jorgensen: It has never been an issue for us. Our values overlap. What I’m good at might not be his strength, and vice versa. It’s all about complementing each other.
Matthew Scillitani: I think that the gap between partners isn’t too important. Picture this, a couple who are both around I.Q. 85. They’re very likely to have serious communication issues despite their similar intellectual ability.
In contrast, take a couple where one is I.Q. 140 and the other is I.Q. 180. There’s a 40-point gap there, but I.Q. 140 is more than enough to effectively work through the typical problems that arise in any romantic relationship.
Casey Scillitani: If you intend to discuss intellectual interests with your partner, and it’s a huge part of your relationship, you will potentially have communication issues. But if your relationship is based on emotional intimacy, and shared hobbies and interests, then you’ll have good success in communication.
Section 3: Diversity
Jacobsen: Following from the last question, or more particularly, how relevant, even rank-ordered in importance, are factors including “gender identity, sexual orientation, various belief commitments, emotional and intellectual proclivities,” desire for children, and more of which you’re aware, in selection of individuals in dating?
Quinn: For marriage, I think gender identity and sexual orientation must be settled and acceptable between the partners. I can’t imagine myself as a straight male being in a long term relationship with anyone but a straight female. 30 years ago this went without saying though.
Then desire for children should be agreed. Fertility can even be checked if it is in doubt.
As for the other stuff, each couple will probably work them out differently, and I wouldn’t want to specify, rank-order, or otherwise try to guess how another successful couple might do it. Other marriages seem much unlike ours, but I don’t have to get along with those people, just my own wife.
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: “It’s not easy to answer, as much of what you mention emerges as time progresses. However, as everyone knows, physical appearance is one of the first things that comes into play, before moving from the purely platonic to something of more substance. This is what one can build upon: similarities, shared values in combination with a pleasant appearance. For me, a life partner only becomes that when a beautiful exterior reflects an equal interior.”
Mrs. Jorgensen: I’m not really concerned about what you’re referring to, as it wasn’t something I considered when I got together with my husband. Back then, we shared many of the same interests, just as we do now. However, it’s probably something people would take into account today, as it seems to play a bigger role now than it did 20+ years ago.
Matthew Scillitani: My ranking is, from most to least important is gender identity/sexual orientation, sense of morality, romance, desire to have children, political beliefs, and lastly the little things like chores or hobbies.
Casey Scillitani: Gender identity, morality, romance, hobbies, chores, emotional proclivities, and political beliefs.
Section 4: Longevity
Jacobsen: Does the style of pairing seem to have an explicit or implicit effect, apparently statistically significantly different, on the health and longevity of the pairing, e.g., common law, secular marital union, religious ceremonial marriage, etc.?
Quinn: I am speaking from experience about a marriage with children. Marriages have rough spots. Making divorce / breakup a bit difficult can help with getting through those rough spots.
I think it’s well supported statistically that children do best with a two-parent household, preferably their birth parents. The state should discourage divorce and the creation of single parent and step-parent situations where the birth parents could have stayed together for the children.
If there are no children in a longterm relationship, it’s a situation I am unfamiliar with. When children arrive, it changes many things about a relationship including putting many stresses on it — life is never the same afterward. We had children soon after marriage.
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: Marriage itself is not the important thing here, even though tradition would have it that this is the safe choice to make for a long-lasting relationship. Here, the religious sphere collides with the statistical reality sphere. Possibly this is why so many relationships fall apart, due to the framework conditions of marriage. Well, in my case, our relationship was safely grounded in what must always lie at the foundation: love, which overcomes everything, married or not. We did not get married until 23 years had passed, and then only to put the formalities in place with regard to heirs, etc.
Mrs. Jorgensen: Getting married in itself was not important to me; what mattered most was that we had, and still have, a strong relationship. Getting married was, of course, nice, but it wasn’t to strengthen the bond between us—rather, it was to formalize things for our children.
Matthew Scillitani: For me, it was important that we were legally and ceremonially married. Symbolism is valuable, and I doubt that many relationships are able to survive long-term without both sides caring about symbolic gestures.
Casey Scillitani: Marriage isn’t just symbolic, it’s also a legal agreement, and in cases of infidelity and financial issues, there are real consequences if the marriage isn’t going well. If a partner were unfaithful then there’s a legal repercussion (divorce and division of assets). So, if a person doesn’t see legal marriage as essential, I question their motivations because, if things were to go south in the relationship, they wouldn’t be held accountable for their actions.
If the reason someone doesn’t want to get married is because they say they don’t have the time or resources, that’s an indication that there’s a lack of commitment to the relationship. Even if it were about symbolism, it’s easy to quickly get married at the courthouse for a minimal cost and time investment. So, if they can’t find the time to be legally married then it indicates that they’re not prioritizing the relationship.
Section 5: Changes
Jacobsen: People change over time. Unless, they have some rigid personality structure, exhibit some personality structure disordering. What seem like important factors and skills to develop in, if not already have entering, the partnership to take into account over the evolution of the “dance” between the members of the relationship, as they age, change, grow, and even lose physical and mental functionality?
Quinn: Shared goals help, shared children is the most obvious and probably most enduring shared goal. Shared housing is another — it’s cheaper to run one household than two, and division of labor in running the household is helpful too. Our parents stayed together until death on both sides. Relationships grow apart in some ways, but there has been enough glue to hold them together.
One distinctive characteristic of our relationship is that we are both intellectually confident. We fear nobody. If we don’t understand something, many others don’t either. This common experience helps us understand each other.
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: In a relationship that lasts for decades, the dance between partners is about following each other’s rhythm, adjusting the steps as life changes, and never forgetting why they began the journey together in the first place. I’d like to highlight a few points that illustrate what I mean:
Communication and openness Being open to each other’s thoughts, feelings, and desires, even as they change, is essential. Regular and honest dialogue helps build trust and understanding, preventing the couple from growing apart.
Flexibility and adaptability Even when a couple shares values and goals, it’s natural for individuals to evolve over time. The ability to adapt to each other’s growth and find new ways to support one another is key to a lasting relationship.
Room for individual growth Even in a close partnership, it’s important to give each other the freedom to pursue individual interests and passions. This can bring new energy to the relationship and inspire both personal and shared growth.
Maintaining intimacy Love flourishes when the couple prioritizes closeness, both emotionally and physically. Small acts of affection and attention, like a hug, a compliment, or a thoughtful surprise, help keep the spark alive.
Shared goals and experiences Setting new goals together or sharing experiences can further strengthen the bond. This might include traveling, exploring new hobbies, or contributing to the community in meaningful ways.
Patience and humor Challenges will arise over time, whether they’re small annoyances or major life events. The ability to face them with patience and to laugh together when things don’t go as planned is an invaluable resource.
Care during physical or mental decline As time goes on, health challenges may become a reality. A lasting love means being there for each other, showing care, and adjusting the relationship to accommodate these changes.
For couples like my wife and me, who already have a strong foundation, it’s this continuous evolution that keeps the love alive.
Mrs. Jorgensen: Ditto
Matthew Scillitani: Empathy, patience, and self-control are always going to be valuable skills to develop in a relationship. As time goes on, making sure that your mind and body are staying fit will help too. Hopefully my wife and I will be in good health into our old age, but if ever she’s unwell, I’d like to be healthy enough myself to support her.
Casey Scillitani: Developing your love for your partner, continuing to understand yourself and them as time goes on, realizing that many relationships fail because one or both partners love something about the other that isn’t enduring, and understanding what makes you really love your partner; if it’s something transient or permanent.
For example, figuring out that loving someone’s appearance, social status, or wealth isn’t true love. Those things go away with time, so if that’s what you were attracted to, the relationship won’t last and you’ll be constantly having to replace them.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time for this short session on mating and dating amongst some smart people, these are intended for you and, if desired and if time, your partner too. Length of responses are entirely up to you. The focus is mating and dating here. “Mating,” the partnering part either by common law, marriage, or something equivalently formalized in some sense up to and including having children. “Dating,” the search and dance of finding someone or some people who fit well with your gender identity, sexual orientation, various belief commitments, emotional and intellectual proclivities, and the like. Regarding life goals and values, what seems, in an overview, essential to consider in a partner for intended short-term pairings and long-term relationships? The idea being: the image and goals, realistic and not, one has for one’s life vis-a-vis a partner.
Jacobsen: Leta Hollingworth posited a plus or minus two standard deviation communication gap in cognitive ability. Too high or too low for interlocutors then the fidelity of conversation becomes too different to maintain it–let’s call this hypothesis cognitive ability congruence. This seems discussed amongst various high-IQ communities. Similarly for socioemotional sensitivities and skills, maybe, a similar hypothesis exists for these, in a different domain, too. In general terms, does this seem like a real factor in the area of intimacy and relationships–matching of mind and emotions for entrance into and sustainability of a relationship?
Jacobsen: Following from the last question, or more particularly, how relevant, even rank-ordered in importance, are factors including “gender identity, sexual orientation, various belief commitments, emotional and intellectual proclivities,” desire for children, and more of which you’re aware, in selection of individuals in dating?
Jacobsen: Does the style of pairing seem to have an explicit or implicit effect, apparently statistically significantly different, on the health and longevity of the pairing, e.g., common law, secular marital union, religious ceremonial marriage, etc.?
Jacobsen: People change over time. Unless, they have some rigid personality structure, exhibit some personality structure disordering. What seem like important factors and skills to develop in, if not already have entering, the partnership to take into account over the evolution of the “dance” between the members of the relationship, as they age, change, grow, and even lose physical and mental functionality?
Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen: In a relationship that lasts for decades, the dance between partners is about following each other’s rhythm, adjusting the steps as life changes, and never forgetting why they began the journey together in the first place. I’d like to highlight a few points that illustrate what I mean:
Communication and openness Being open to each other’s thoughts, feelings, and desires, even as they change, is essential. Regular and honest dialogue helps build trust and understanding, preventing the couple from growing apart.
Flexibility and adaptability Even when a couple shares values and goals, it’s natural for individuals to evolve over time. The ability to adapt to each other’s growth and find new ways to support one another is key to a lasting relationship.
Room for individual growth Even in a close partnership, it’s important to give each other the freedom to pursue individual interests and passions. This can bring new energy to the relationship and inspire both personal and shared growth.
Maintaining intimacy Love flourishes when the couple prioritizes closeness, both emotionally and physically. Small acts of affection and attention, like a hug, a compliment, or a thoughtful surprise, help keep the spark alive.
Shared goals and experiences Setting new goals together or sharing experiences can further strengthen the bond. This might include traveling, exploring new hobbies, or contributing to the community in meaningful ways.
Patience and humor Challenges will arise over time, whether they’re small annoyances or major life events. The ability to face them with patience and to laugh together when things don’t go as planned is an invaluable resource.
Care during physical or mental decline As time goes on, health challenges may become a reality. A lasting love means being there for each other, showing care, and adjusting the relationship to accommodate these changes.
For couples like my wife and me, who already have a strong foundation, it’s this continuous evolution that keeps the love alive.
Mrs. Jorgensen: Ditto.
Discussion
The dialogue underscores the multifaceted nature of modern mating and dating, revealing how successful partnerships are built upon a blend of cognitive congruence, effective communication, and shared values. Participants point to the significance of both tangible factors—such as fertility and legal marriage—and more intangible elements, like socioemotional sensitivity and complementarity in daily life. Several contributors emphasized that while initial attraction often centers on physical appearance and immediate interests, it is the evolution of a relationship—through adaptive communication and the steady nurturing of shared goals—that determines its long-term health. For instance, the recurring theme of evolving relationship dynamics highlights how individuals must continuously recalibrate as they age, adapt, and face life’s inherent uncertainties. This reflects the idea that relationships, much like any dynamic system, require both structural stability and the flexibility to incorporate change.
The conversation also brought forward a nuanced perspective on the role of legal and ceremonial unions. While some participants underscored the value of formal marriage as a societal and symbolic anchor, others pointed out that the underlying commitment—characterized by everyday practices of care and mutual support—is what ultimately fortifies a partnership. This dichotomy illustrates that legal marriage and informal unions both have distinct benefits and limitations, often influenced by the broader cultural context and personal beliefs. Overall, the interview paints a picture of relationship sustainability that goes beyond simplistic notions of attraction. It invites readers to appreciate the delicate interplay of cognitive matching, complementary traits, and the resilience required to navigate both expected and unforeseen life challenges.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 22). Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Mr. Tor Arne Jorgensen, Mrs. Jorgensen, David Quinn, Matthew Scillitani, Casey Scillitani on Smart People Mating and Dating [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/smart-people-mating-dating
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: February 22, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 22, 2025
Updated: February 23, 2025
Abstract
In this in-depth conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Marc Roberge, whose reflective insights traverse themes of life’s margins, the evolution of thought and identity, and the interplay of science, philosophy, and personal struggle. Roberge weaves together historical perspectives—from Democritus and Heraclitus to modern astrophysics—with personal narratives of mental health, familial relationships, and the burdens of expectation. His candid discourse challenges conventional ideas about progress, reason, and the nature of existence, urging readers to consider the spaces between certainty and chaos.
Keywords: Bipolar Disorder, Heuristics, Identity, Life Lessons, Margins, Mental Health, Regression Obsession, Science and Philosophy
Introduction
This interview captures a candid conversation with Marc Roberge, whose intellectual journey—marked by philosophical musing and personal adversity—offers a window into the intersections of science, art, and existential inquiry. Born in 1970, Roberge reflects on the shaping forces of life, drawing on both historical narratives and the raw immediacy of personal experience. The discussion spans topics as diverse as the geometry of ideas, the evolution of human consciousness, familial bonds, mental health challenges, and the relentless pace of modern technological advancement.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Marc Roberge
Section 1: Opening Reflections on Life and Learning
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Being born in 1970, what do you see as the main lessons in the first half of life?
Marc Roberge:
1. Shrinking Margins — they frame our ideas, discourse, and experiences. A 2.23” border around an 8.5”x11” page makes for a text-to-space ratio of ~1.618:1, the Golden Ratio and proper guardrail against homogeneity. Current standards are <1”. These are the narrowing battlegrounds of ideas where individuals can directly engage with authority, providing there’s room left to swing a pen. In all affairs, private and public, we must guard against the erosion of our margins — those of ideas, tolerance, patience, experimentation, et al. Otherwise…
Section 2: Regression Obsession and the Evolution of Thought
2. Regression Obsession — Bodily, we are products of evolution, yeah? Next to bipedalism and opposable thumbs, most would agree that our greatest trick, and still one of the most confounding to us, is the neocortex. Those who maintain that we were instantiated through some divine means must nonetheless concede that reason, language (communication), memory, and awareness, are chief among the sundry refinements our neocortex brings to the limbic regardless of origin. From a religious or ideological standpoint, I read any concession of our reasoning faculty and failure to scrutinize as an insult and affront to whichever creator is paid fealty, or innovator credited. Where and when are we asked to suspend our disbelief? Works of fiction, of course. In the immortal words of Gemini P-Orridge, our ‘identity is fictional, written by parents, relatives, education, society’, as was theirs, and so on. Our identity— our beliefs, perceptions, culture, language, knowledge, — describe and circumscribe our subjective realities. Michael Levin defines the latter as ‘cones’ of knowledge, but I digress. We think of social engineering as a catchall for hackers and scammers who compromise systems and individuals for personal gain, but it is simply a ‘professional designation’ for something we all do in our daily interactions. Nearly all social dynamics employ these simple levers of manipulation to compromise our reason by targeting our emotions. Carnegie’s book is a distillation of the techniques we learn from a very young age. In short, men ‘speak opinions, not facts. They see perceptions, not truths.’ — Marcus Aurelius. Which brings us to…
Section 3: Heuristic Hysterics and Ancient Insights
3. Heuristic hysterics — Circa 500-370 B.C.E, Democritus lays out atomism while Heraclitus offers the ideas of flux, logos, liminality, and nous, anticipating by 2500 years or so, ideas and developments that have come to define much of the 20th and early 21st Centuries. That we pulled the trigger early on labeling ‘atoms’ doesn’t detract from Democritus’ premise — be it quanta or other, there is a point where matter is indivisible and can only further be reduced to something immaterial, as understood within current limits (see Margins). Einstein offers a framework that marries the two, but stops shy of explaining what ‘energy’ is. Heraclitus, writes that ‘(many) people do not ‘understand the sorts of things they encounter’! Nor do they recognize them (even after they have had experience (of them) — though they themselves think (they recognize them).” Fragments 4(D 7). Plato follows with his ‘Allegory of the Cave’. David Foster Wallace gives us ‘The Fish Story’. Shakespeare weighs in via the monologues of Polonius or Jacques. Now, the aptly named J.T. Webb telescope is upending physics and cosmology — the very fabric of our reality is turning to vapour before our eyes. In such chaos, the only lodestar remaining is to ‘know thyself and to thine own self be true, for the unexamined life is not worth living.’ Family, community, and society — they craft the masks and write the parts. Improvise at your peril. Bottom line — most people are only half-awake, cozy in their blanket conformity, the collective thumb of the lowest common denominator mashing the snooze button.
Section 4: Confronting Mortality and the Fear of Death
4. Becker suggested that we are motivated by the fear of death. Nietzsche described a death drive. I submit that death is the portemanteau for that which is fundamental to all anxieties and fears — impotence. Chaos, randomness, unpredictability, the unknown, these are the traits of uncertainty, in the face of which we are ignorant and lack control. Collectively, they represent one of our greatest frustrations — the future, the unknown — of which death is but one form. Burton provides contemplations on this from a variety of perspectives in his book ‘On Being Certain’. My point is, we like patterns, order, and structure. When they’re absent, we are disoriented.
Plato’s Allegory of The Cave. Thales’ Ship. Erving Goffman. Shakespeare via Polonius (Hamlet) and Jacques (As You Like It). John Searle. Sam Vaknin’s Theory of Self-States. Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration and Personality Shaping via TPD.
The World truly is a stage, and we are actors, wearing a variety of ready-made masks, playing many roles. What we call a core or self is an amalgam of these.
Calhoun’s Rat Utopia experiments.
The Parker Probe has traveled nearly 90M miles, screaming towards the Sun at 430,000mph, and expected to pass within 3.8M miles from it — the fastest craft ever built. D.A.R.T. hit its bullseye last September. We have RC robots and drones on Mars. The Webb telescope has broadened our understanding of the Universe. Lidar, Side-Scan Sonar, and Ground Penetrating Radar have uncovered ancient mysteries that would otherwise remain entombed. Electron microscopes and particle colliders are allowing us to peer ever deeper into the fabric of our reality.
100 years ago, W.J. Sidis penned a slim book titled ‘The Animate and the Inanimate’ in which he challenges the 2nd law of thermodynamics, proposing the existence of a counter-mechanism, hinting at something akin to what J.A. Wheeler would term, some 50 years later, a ‘black hole’. I expect everyone is familiar with the academic lineage of Bohr, Wheeler, Feynman, three of the most intuitive and prolific minds in physics. As an aside, Wheeler praised the I.S.P.E.’s 1992 essay compilation titled ‘Thinking On The Edge”. I digress.
Another 50 years has provided us with tangible evidence of black holes and, thanks to the contributions of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Schwarzchild, Hawking, Thorne, Susskind, et al, a far deeper understanding. Voyager 1 (originally Mariner) launched in 1977, poked through the heliopause a decade ago, and is currently transmitting from roughly 15.5B miles distant.
We’ve got A.I. powered supercomputers crammed in our pockets with 1M x the RAM, 4M x the ROM, and 100k x the processing that landed Apollo 11. All of our ‘Maslow Daily Recommended Needs’ are on tap. Flying cars? For a paltry $250k, you can be a Jetson too, or a Cousteau, or an astronaut.
At the turn of the 20th Century, wars were still fought with rifles and sabers on horseback, roads were mud or cobble, sidewalks were wood or stone (often doubling as public toilets). Nikola Tesla is unwittingly shaping modern society — radio communication, alternating current, wireless lighting, x-ray (before Röntgen), wireless power, turbines, engines, generators, remote control, the Niagara project, etc — rewarded with theft, sabotage, ridicule, litigation, and a pauper’s death.
Now, we’re approaching 200M vehicles belching fumes on well-drained and well-maintained public roads — larded with asphalt, lined with concrete sidewalks, metal guardrails and automated lights. There’s some 730,000+ miles of pipeline underground, over twice the length of global railways. Advances in medicine, computing, engineering, sciences, physics, mathematics — what’s to say other than ‘wow’? Once unthinkable, now manifest. And we make it so.
Section 5: Family Dynamics and the Lottery of Relationships
Jacobsen: How do you see relationships with siblings developing over childhood, adolescence, and adulthood?
Roberge: Families — it’s a lottery. Some are great (or good enough) while others are downright dysfunctional and detrimental, which returns us to the above. We know better, but fuck it up anyways. We insist we have free will and agency, that we are upright, civilized — meanwhile, we’re slaves to our emotions, passions, desires, superstitions, fears. Until recently, I’d have taken a bullet for any of them. Now, I realize how little we truly know (knew) each other and how toxic our environment was. I don’t harbor ill-feelings and wish them all health and happiness. I just didn’t want them in my life any longer — partly to spare them (myself, equally), partly because I’m done.
Section 6: Nostalgia, Regret, and Shifting Work Ethic
Jacobsen: Do you resonate with that “deep nostalgia and regret” to this day?
Roberge: I prefer John Koenig’s coinage ‘anemoia’ from his ‘Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows’, describing nostalgia for something never directly experienced. I think we all experience grief for the en-passant losses. We tend to fantasize about the ‘roads not taken’ or those we were barred from. Regrets? I have had a few. Nostalgia? None.
Jacobsen: Do you feel as though you took on that same work ethic?
Roberge: Not as consistently. He was unusually hale. I began to struggle with depression and inflammation (migraines, restless legs, insomnia, psoriasis, joint pain, …) when I was 9. He smoked three packs a day, ate sugar pie for breakfast, and drank Pepsi by the gallon. I don’t recall him ever taking a sick day. He retired in his 60s only to return to work, on and off, into his 70s. Even then, most guys in their 20s had a hard time keeping up. That’s when it all caught up with him — diabetes and cancer. He survived a first bout, not the second.
He built himself a hunt camp 15-20 years ago, humping everything on foot up and down a ¼ mile stretch of mud trail – plywood, studs, drywall, cement bags, asphalt shingles, carpet and linoleum, cabinets and countertop.
Section 7: Personal Struggles with Mental Health and Suicidality
Jacobsen: What do you make, in hindsight, of your own attempts at ending your life?
Roberge: Bipolar Disorder is a double whammy, and often comorbid with at least one other serious disorder (mine include ADD, OCPD, GAD). While only ~3% of adults have BD, for 82% of them, quality of life and ability to function is severely impaired. The risk of suicidality is 10-30x greater than that of the average population, twice that of those with major depressive disorder, with a 20-60% chance of at least one attempt, 20% succeeding.
Life expectancy is already curtailed by some 10-15 years from the wear and tear. I’m 54. My father passed at 84. While not wholly predictive, odds are I’ve only got another decade or so. Statistically speaking, I’m already a cliché. The disorder is incurable, worsening with each major depressive/manic cycle. So suicidality is baked into the cake and, frankly, never off the table. There are things worse than death —
We may have some reservations, but overall, for the elderly or terminally ill, when quality of life/prognosis is such that the only thing on the menu is more suffering, the type that can be ‘seen’, medically assisted suicide seems the compassionate choice. Invisible ailments? Compassion flies out the door. the matter into your own hands, you’re stigmatized. What’s the fucking difference? If anyone dares try the ‘long term solution to a temporary problem’ line on me, they get an emphatic middle finger. There’s nothing temporary about chronic illness, and no solution, only management.
Most of us can sympathize/empathize with a bad headache. A migraine is another beast altogether — for the longest while, I was getting 2-3 of them per week. The pain was so intense that I vomited nearly every time, couldn’t stand light or noise, and needed really heavy meds just to dull the edge long enough for me to pass out and sleep it off. Sleeping 4 hours a night, sweating through my bedding, 4 broken molars and several other teeth worn or chipped from bruxism, psoriasis,…, extreme swings in mood and energy,…, while trying to maintain a family life and career?
Toss in all of the other factors such as ACEs (divorce, neglect, abandonment, attachment disorder, self-esteem, stress, abuse,…) and a 1/3,000+ IQ, for example, attending high school with only 400 students in a small blue collar town. The local library had 10 copies of Danielle Steele for every obsolete reference book on the shelves. I managed, but never truly fit in.
I think my attempts, the one more of a practice run, the other full-fledged, are normal responses. Still, it takes a lot to brace yourself for something like that, so to go through with it only to wake up — I was insane with anger and not six months later, I had already planned out my next attempt, but I divulged it during a rare argument with my spouse the night before and she instantly leapt into action — lining up appointments and advocating on my behalf, since, by then, I was unmoored. My pilot light blew out 5 years ago. Try as I might, I’ve not been able to get the furnace fired up since.
Section 8: The Impact of Early Life Disruption and Bullying
Jacobsen: What was the immediate feeling at the surprise moving time?
Roberge: As might be expected, rather alienating and disorienting. To an 8 year old, washing away 4-5 years of familiarity, routine, memory, experience is tantamount to ego-death. What little identity may have begun to crystallize was shattered and the rapid succession of some half-dozen ‘living arrangements’ over a roughly five year course at such a pivotal developmental stage was disastrous.
Jacobsen: How was the time re-adjustment socially at the new school?
Roberge: I never did. Three months in, I fell into a deep depression and was hospitalized for a week, following which I was returned to my old school, albeit under less than satisfactory circumstances.
Jacobsen: How did you feel in the separation from immediate family?
Roberge: The rift ran deep. My mother was shunned by her siblings. My father still hunted with her brothers and when she came to town I would visit with her at my grandmother’s or aunt’s (depending on where she was staying for a few days). Otherwise, other than a cousin in my classes and summers at my father’s parents, all of those relations remained arms-length and somewhat formal.
Jacobsen: Do you feel that you missed out of time with your father, as in the “fool” among other youth?
Roberge: I register it as a mutual loss. He was a looming figure and so competent in his field that he felt his success was a recipe that could be applied universally. The problem was, given his limited education and openness, he lacked any curiosity outside of these narrow pursuits and could not accommodate for a mind (mine) quite different from his. He recognized my potential, perhaps even feared it, but couldn’t find the middle-ground (nor try). As a result, we never shared stories, heartfelt exchanges, deep life discussions, or anything of the kind. Ours was a transactional affair, very ‘boss-like’.
Jacobsen: Do you think the grandparents’ Catholicism in any way influenced your father’s domineering behaviour and attitude around you?
Roberge: Without a doubt. When I lived with them, they were already well into their 70s and somewhat milder but my grandfather had a cruel streak wedged in there that I rarely witnessed but knew from the odd retelling and behaviour of their adult children around them that definitely paints a stern upbringing. Superstition is the gateway drug to conformity — the soma of the masses.
Jacobsen: Do you still feel like a disappointment?
Roberge: Disillusioned, which is a bittersweet gift. Painful, but now disabused of the delusion, I could focus on the damage done or, as I prefer to do, focus on the newfound clarity.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a “screw-up”?
Roberge: I’ve screwed up many things, and lives (mine included), but am not a ‘screw up’. I’m not convinced there was ever a stable target of any value to shoot for, so partly my failures are due to the climate, partly due to the fact that I don’t think like most and not motivated by the same things, and we can’t discount that many of my ideas are ambitious and either lack financing, technical backing, or time. Am I happy with how things have turned out for me? No. But I do have a great spouse, kids, a granddaughter, a place to live, food on the table, my mind isn’t fully compromised yet, I’ve a stack of reading and a devoted medical team helping me connect the dots.
Jacobsen: How did you deal with the bullying after the divorce?
Roberge: The first few times, I ran, I froze, I trembled, I fawned. Then one day I was subbing for a friend on their paper route and was chased by a pair of dobermans. The next day I approached the house and the dogs started towards me, I rolled up a paper and smacked them both on the snout, sending them whimpering. After that, I always stood my ground. I only had maybe five minor altercations — most recently about 6 years ago when a drunk patron at a hotel where I was attempting to check in was harassing the desk clerk and eventually attacked him, which is when I stepped in, lifted him off the ground and slammed him into a wall and down onto a bench where I sat on him until police arrived.
Section 9: Reflections on Construction
Jacobsen: I wasn’t very good at construction, but I enjoyed it. How about you?
Roberge: I loved construction and would have kept at it. I was accepted into UofO Architecture but dissuaded by my father, who also discouraged my pursuing a career in construction. Of course, when I started in the trade, it was the late 80s and early 90s — wages were stagnant and infrastructure work had dried up so there was a flood of ‘jobbers’ around. Small businesses were folding up every other day. Still, it paid for my education, kept me afloat during difficult times and has served me since, including saving myself $80k building my own house.
Jacobsen: How was the welcome for the new, first child?
Roberge: I won’t lie. There were some earlier concerns and later complications but in the end everything went really well and she’s absolutely amazing. Only 3 months and already interacting, expressive, two little teeth poking from her gums when she laughs. She’s provided a new focus for the family and I see already that ours is a vastly different parenting style than that of our parents, far more engaged.
Jacobsen: What has “rug-pull after rug-pull” taught you?
Roberge: As Mike Tyson said, ‘everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.’ There is no antidote — the only thing one can do is invest in their own intellectual and skill development, expose themselves to as many tests of these, such that one is confident, if in nothing else, their own abilities, justified by the fact these abilities have afforded them this opportunity to ‘fight again’.
Jacobsen: What were the lessons from your first marriage of those twenty years with the woman with two children?
Roberge: Exactly what I’ve outlined above. Regardless of either party’s shortcomings, the bare truth is that I ‘fooled myself’ into thinking I was ‘in love’ and that she would come around. People you share a life and bed with can become incredibly nasty and vindictive when they fear disclosure because they need to control the narrative. She was the consequence of my upbringing — I should have waited until I was 30.
Section 10: Reflections on Career, Health, and Existential Dichotomies
Jacobsen: How are you managing health, and so on, with the current stage of work and limited energy in the day?
Roberge: It’s not great. I read about reported long-COVID (Epstein-Barr), POTS, et al., and many of the symptoms are eerily similar, which raises questions on my end as to what the underlying commonalities may be. Sleep and stress are my two biggest factors. I barely get 5.5 broken hours on a good day and the current political climate hardly allows for much relaxation. So that’s been undoing some of the progress. Since leaving the IQ societies, I’ve refocused on more actionable pursuits, including volunteering to provide tech support for the CFIC (https://centreforinquiry.ca) and create educational content for onboarding newcomers to decentralized platforms and services, something that is exceedingly pressing given the unprecedented level of scrubbing happening across the Web and deliverables (i.e., Kindle). Those who haven’t been paying attention are already compromised.
Jacobsen: What has leaning into the mystery of the god/non-god dichotomy brought for you?
Roberge: Primarily, that it’s a non-starter. When I think of the lives, time, money, effort, and relations wasted on this nonsense, I am embarrassed for the human race. If you lead with the answer, your arrogance blinds you and you learn nothing.
Jacobsen: Do you think an education around scientific concepts and processes is more important than formalities of symbols and operators for those symbols?
Roberge: Language is key, so symbols and operators and icons are all part of the programmatics. We can learn things without them but cannot store them long-term nor communicate them very effectively. Replication (self) is a signature of life and words allow knowledge and skills to be replicated, hence that strand of knowledge lives on. Words describe our reality, our thoughts, allow abstraction and can be sequenced in ways that hack the brain (NLP). But language out of context is meaningless, so lead with the question, follow with the symbols.
Jacobsen: You attempted your life, more than once, yet have no sway from immortality: Why?
Roberge: The value of anything is in its uniqueness and rarity. Immortality is like printing fake money — it devalues the currency and the product. If you can’t make a heaven of this place, you’ll only make a hell of another, so check yourselves. Let’s not omit the fact that pro-lifers seem less militant vis-à-vis MAID, something widely accepted by a vast many ‘faithful’ — hypocrisy much? So why is my suffering any different than a Senior’s if, as is the case, my condition is incurable and progressive? Every party is fun until it’s not — eventually you get tired of feeling like the sober adult chaperoning blottoed adolescents, the whole thing is getting out of control and you just want it to end. Since you can’t reason with them and you’re outnumbered 99:1, you get to a point where every sunrise promises another onslaught of stupidity and sleep seems the only inoculation against it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time again, Marc.
Discussion
Marc Roberge’s candid reflections reveal a mind that straddles the line between high-minded philosophy and visceral personal experience. His exploration of “margins” in both physical and metaphorical senses challenges readers to consider how constraints shape creativity and thought. Roberge’s willingness to discuss personal mental health struggles alongside historical and scientific insights underscores the complex interplay between the individual and the broader currents of society and knowledge. His insights suggest that while life is riddled with chaos, uncertainty, and loss, resilience—and the courage to stand against conformity—remains a potent, if elusive, force.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Marc Roberge for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2). February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 22). Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Navigating the Margins of Existence (2) [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge-2
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Dr. Pasha Dashtgard Polarization Extremism Research & Innovation Lab, American University
Correspondence: N/A
Received: January 15, 2025 Accepted: February 22, 2025 Published: February 22, 2025
Abstract
This article examines the influence of online male supremacist spaces on the political behavior and gender identity of Gen Z men, focusing on the surprising yet consequential support for Donald Trump. By analyzing voting patterns that reveal a stark gender divide—where Gen Z men lean toward Trump while their female counterparts favor Kamala Harris—the study explores how digital ecosystems steeped in misogyny, anti-feminist discourse, and toxic masculinity have shaped young men’s perceptions of gender roles. The article argues that persistent exposure to extremist ideologies online, through platforms such as Twitch, YouTube, and Instagram, reinforces harmful stereotypes and limits the development of a more flexible, positive model of masculinity. It further discusses the broader implications of these digital influences for political polarization and mental health among young men, who face heightened risks of depression and substance abuse. Ultimately, the work calls for the creation of targeted educational resources and intervention strategies to help guide boys and young men in navigating evolving gender roles in the digital age.
Keywords: Anti-feminist discourse, digital echo chambers, extremism, gender roles, Gen Z, male supremacy, masculinity, misogyny, online influencers, polarization, social media
Introduction
The digital age has fundamentally transformed how young people form their political and social identities. This article explores the emergence of a troubling trend among Gen Z men, who have increasingly been drawn to male supremacist ideologies online. Recent voting data reveal a pronounced gender divide: while Gen Z women overwhelmingly supported Kamala Harris, their male counterparts favored Donald Trump—a disparity that reflects deeper cultural currents. Since Trump’s initial presidential campaign, a proliferation of online content—ranging from misogynistic streamers and anti-feminist YouTubers to niche social media influencers—has contributed to a digital environment that normalizes harmful, rigid definitions of masculinity. This introduction outlines how these online narratives not only shape political leanings but also influence broader perceptions of gender roles. By critically examining the intersection of digital media, political behavior, and gender identity, this article seeks to offer insights into the urgent need for resources and educational interventions that can foster healthier models of masculinity in an increasingly polarized society.
Main Text (Interview)
Author: Dr. Pasha Dashtgard
As someone who has studied male supremacist spaces online for close to a decade, Trump’s popularity among Gen Z men was shocking to some but comes as no surprise to me. Gen Z men voted for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris by 2% (48% to 46%), while their female counterparts supported Harris over Trump by 27% (63% to 36%). This gender split in popularity reflects an online ecosystem that, for years, has exposed young men to harmful ideas about sex, relationships, girls and women. We must offer a new model of masculinity to boys and young men, one that does not force a singular, rigid, limiting definition of masculinity onto men.
In our current digital landscape, it is impossible for boys and young men of any age to avoid male supremacist ideas and ideologies online. Whether the online community is focused on videogames, working out, dating and relationship advice, or career guidance, boys and young men are being subjected to rhetoric that promotes a vision of sex and gender that is hostile and radicalizing.
We aren’t offering boys models of how to behave differently—leaving the door open for manipulative influencers to guide them instead. While Feminism has illustrated new and better ways for women and girls to think about gender and sex, there is no equivalent model of new gender roles for boys and men. In this gap, filling this void, comes a horde of misogynist streamers on Twitch, male supremacist YouTubers, trad wife influencers on Instagram, the Man-O-Sphere… there is a whole ecosystem on the internet dedicated to exploiting male insecurity, vulnerability, and despair. By weaponizing their depression, their frustration, and their hopelessness, these online communities look to filter negative emotions through the lens of misogyny, male supremacy, and anti-feminist discourse, finding a way to blame women and feminists for all the harms that these boys and men experience.
The voting behavior of Gen Z men (defined as 18-27 years old) reflects the digital waters they’ve been swimming in since 2015, when Trump began campaigning for president: full of sexism, racism, and other hateful ideas.
At the time, most of those boys were in middle school and high school, watching streamers and online influencers making a living trying to embarrass feminists and ridicule men who
challenge traditional gender roles, not understanding the relationship between edgy humor online and the gradual normalization of sexism and misogyny. The addictive nature of smartphones, the ease with which social media allows us to create and occupy our own echo chambers, the way that online anonymity facilitates cruel and insulting comments rather than more careful and considerate speech face to face – all of this has played out with our Gen Z boys over the last 9 years, and we are seeing the downstream effects in the voting booth.
Some might argue that these male supremacist influencers are reviving a vision of masculinity that is good and strong. But the actual effects on boys and young men tell a different story: men today are committing suicide at 4 times the rate of women, and self medicating with drugs and alcohol at twice the rate. Yet our boys are still given the same restrictive ideals about masculinity they’ve always had, now just rebranded on social media, forums, and apps in the form of modern male supremacist ideology. Contemporary male supremacy promotes far more hostile views towards women, focused on grievance, distrust in relationships, and the belief that sex with as many women as possible is the best and only way to validate yourself as a man. This ideology leaves young men lost, angry, and hopeless.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, in collaboration with American University’s Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL), is developing a resource on gender based bigotry called Not Just a Joke: Preventing Gender and Sexuality-Based Bigotry, which is meant to help examine what narratives are being fed to young people about sex, gender, sexual orientation, and how these ideas are connected to racism, conspiracy theories, and supremacist ideologies. This resource on gender-based bigotry provides information, conversation strategies, and a lay of the land for anyone who considers themselves a trusted adult in the life of young people.
It’s time to help boys and young men adapt to evolving gender roles. We need resources for parents, teachers, and youth mentors, equipping them with knowledge and skills to guide boys through the ever-shifting terrain of masculinity and sexuality on the internet.
Discussion
The findings discussed in this article underscore the profound impact that digital environments have on shaping the identities and political behaviors of young men. The pervasive presence of male supremacist ideologies online not only reinforces outdated and restrictive notions of masculinity but also translates into tangible political outcomes, as evidenced by the voting trends among Gen Z men. The significant gender gap—where young men demonstrated a measurable preference for Donald Trump compared to their female counterparts—suggests that exposure to misogynistic and anti-feminist rhetoric is influencing electoral behavior.
Digital platforms such as Twitch, YouTube, and Instagram serve as fertile grounds for the dissemination of extremist narratives. These platforms often promote a version of masculinity that is intertwined with aggression, entitlement, and a rejection of feminist perspectives. Over time, the normalization of such ideas can lead to a broader cultural shift in how masculinity is understood and enacted, with serious implications for both interpersonal relationships and political discourse.
Moreover, the mental health implications for young men navigating these echo chambers are particularly alarming. The continuous exposure to toxic masculinity, combined with the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes, has been linked to increased rates of depression, substance abuse, and even suicidal tendencies among this demographic. The digital space, while offering connection and community, simultaneously isolates individuals in ideological bubbles where vulnerability is exploited and alternative narratives are suppressed.
In response to these challenges, the article advocates for the development of comprehensive educational resources and intervention strategies aimed at offering healthier models of masculinity. There is an urgent need for collaboration among educators, policymakers, mental health professionals, and digital platforms to dismantle the echo chambers that perpetuate harmful ideologies. Such efforts should focus on promoting critical media literacy, resilience against extremist content, and the cultivation of a more inclusive and flexible understanding of gender roles.
Methods
None.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All remains the intellectual property of the author and In-Sight Publishing.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Donald Trump and the Lost Boys.
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format, tailored for a scholarly article. Traditional sections such as Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text, and Discussion are complemented by supplementary sections including Methods, Data Availability, and References. This structured approach ensures both academic rigor and clear presentation of the content.
Father Bojan Jovanović Serbian Orthodox Church (Priest) & Christian Alliance of Croatia (Secretary)
Correspondence: Father Bojan Jovanović
Received: October 16, 2024 Accepted: February 15, 2025 Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
This article examines the promotion event held on October 10th at the HKD Napredak hall – Napredak Cultural Center, which marked the launch of the Alliance of Christians of Croatia and the presentation of Bojan Jovanović’s book, “CONFESSION: HOW WE KILLED GOD.” It explores how the new association aims to unite diverse Christian denominations and promote moral values while addressing controversial issues within the Serbian Orthodox Church, including allegations of pedophilia and political manipulation. By situating these discussions within the broader contexts of religious reform and social justice, the article calls for enhanced transparency, accountability, and constructive dialogue to foster meaningful change within both the religious and public spheres.
Keywords: Alliance of Christians of Croatia, Christian Values, Confession: How We Killed God, Croatian Politics, Cultural Identity, Pedophilia, Political Processes, Religious Reform, Serbian Orthodox Church, Social Justice
Introduction
The promotion event held on October 10th at the HKD Napredak hall – Napredak Cultural Center, which marked the launch of the newly established Alliance of Christians of Croatia and the presentation of Bojan Jovanović’s book, “CONFESSION: HOW WE KILLED GOD.” The event highlighted the association’s mission to unite diverse Christian denominations, promote moral values, and address pressing social issues, including the exposure of misconduct within the Serbian Orthodox Church. The narrative details speeches by key figures such as Mr. Damir Katulić and Mr. Ante Prkačin, who underscored the importance of confronting controversial issues—ranging from pedophilia in religious institutions to political misuse of church authority—to foster open dialogue and drive necessary reforms.
Main Text (Interview)
Author: Father Bojan Jovanović
On October 10th, in the HKD Napredak hall – Napredak Cultural Center, the promotion of the newly established association Alliance of Christians of Croatia took place, along with the book “CONFESSION: HOW WE KILLED GOD” by Bojan Jovanović.
The formation of the new association Alliance of Christians of Croatia represents a significant step in uniting believers and promoting Christian values in society. This organization aims to bring together various Christian denominations and encourage collaboration among them, strengthening community and solidarity.
At its core, the Alliance of Christians of Croatia seeks to enhance moral values, promote dialogue and cooperation among different communities, and actively participate in social issues. The organization will organize educational programs, conferences, and volunteer actions to improve the quality of life in local communities.
Through the Alliance, Christians will have the opportunity to collaboratively work on projects addressing social justice, humanitarian activities, and environmental conservation, thereby promoting active citizenship and social responsibility. This initiative can also contribute to building a positive image of the Christian community in the public eye.
At the beginning of the promotion, it was emphasized that when discussing sensitive topics, it is important to approach them with care and understanding. Sometimes it is essential to address issues that may be difficult or emotional to foster open dialogue and exchange of views. Acknowledging and confronting these topics can bring valuable insights and help us better understand one another. In this regard, we must be ready to listen and engage in respectful conversations to build a healthy and supportive community.
The attendees were addressed by the president of the association, Mr. Damir Katulić:
“The theme of the book we are presenting today is inherently very difficult, and it is a topic that is seldom discussed publicly: cases of pedophilia and the sexual exploitation of young people. An additional dark dimension to this issue is that it occurs within an institution that, by its vocation and calling, should stand in stark contrast to the activities discussed in the book. Specifically, this involves individuals within the Serbian Orthodox Church who are perpetrators of these offenses. The very existence of such phenomena within a religious institution raises numerous controversies, which is why I would like to emphasize at the outset of this presentation that this book predominantly addresses the issue from a humanistic perspective and a focus on human rights. Of course, we should not ignore other connotations that these cases within the Serbian Orthodox Church may have, such as their political or legal aspects, but I reiterate that the main emphasis during this presentation will be on pedophilia as an entirely unacceptable form of abuse and sexual deviation in civilized societies, as well as the consequences it has for young people who are its victims.”
Allow me to conclude this introduction with the words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” Unfortunately, these words have come true, and this book stands as a sorrowful witness to the fragility of human morality and faith.
Mr. Ivica Valek, the vice president of the Alliance of Christians of Croatia, also contributed to the discussion and promotion: “Last week, we were prevented from promoting the book at the book fair in Podgorica, Montenegro; even our friends and collaborators from the Saint Peter of Cetinje Foundation were indirectly banned from displaying the book at their booth.
Despite the ban, thanks to the Saint Peter of Cetinje Foundation, we managed to present the book at the fair, and after Zagreb, we are preparing promotions in Serbia, Slovenia, and Kosovo. Why did we print a second expanded edition of the book? The book serves as a permanent document about the history and the current state of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The content reveals pedophilia and homosexuality within the Serbian Orthodox Church, organized, executed, and protected by the church’s top leadership.”
The declaration of murderers as saints by the church indicates that the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) is also one of the tools of Greater Serbian imperialist politics and bears responsibility for the crimes committed during the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The book contains 464 pages and over 50 photographs and documents.
Bojan Jovanović has risked his life for the safety of his family in his desire to cleanse the SPC of evil and to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, defending the truth, and the book encourages us all to support him. The printing of the second edition of the book is a show of support for Bojan Jovanović in his fight to protect the victims of pedophilia and to punish the perpetrators in this David and Goliath struggle.
The book also highlights the necessity for the restoration of an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Croatia.
At the promotion, Mr. Ante Prkačin (president of the association’s council) addressed the attendees with a brilliant speech. He is also the main initiator of discussions, analyses, and scientific gatherings on the position and role of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) in Croatian society and the state.
“The Serbian Orthodox Church today is an extended criminal arm of the failed and disintegrated state of Serbia. An organization that, according to its constitution and teachings, should be a pillar of spirituality has transformed into a reptile that survives by constantly pretending to be a victim and engaging in very dangerous and fabricated mythomania.”
The final document of the Round Table held in the Croatian Parliament in March of this year, initiated by Mr. Prkačin, with the theme: “The Influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church on Political Processes and Events in Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow,” has entered the book as a historical document. Prior to this, the document was presented to all significant global institutions, including the UN, the World Council of Churches, and the World Health Organization.
Mr. Prkačin also participated in the creation of a document that was submitted to the Vatican, the UN in Geneva, and the International Criminal Court in The Hague through an authorized attorney from the USA and the NGO ECAGLOBAL from Seattle. The topic addressed was: “Pedophilia and Other Crimes of the Serbian Orthodox Church under the Protection of the State of Serbia.”
At the end of the promotion, it was concluded that the association is not an opposition to any group, religious organization, or individual. Instead, our goal is to offer an alternative to existing solutions and approaches. We believe that diverse voices and perspectives can contribute to a better understanding of issues and the creation of constructive solutions that benefit everyone.
Author’s remarks:
For a long time, the Serbian Orthodox Church has suppressed, ignored, and covered up its connections to crimes, but this has ultimately backfired due to its lack of credibility, resulting in a loss of reputation and honor. What open enemies of the SPC and hostile ideologies could not achieve, the best sons of the SPC have managed to do.
Most Orthodox Serbs go through life without uttering a single critical word about any patriarch or member of the clergy. However, the recorded history of the clerical hierarchy bears little resemblance to the image they project, and the true stories about the SPC hierarchy are among the most distorted in the history of religion, with exceptions for individuals. Their hedonistic lives, sexual perversions, and tolerance of injustice will be subjects of future writings.
In attempting to portray them with a pure past, the SPC has developed a doctrinal facade that shamelessly and falsely presents them as pious.
At various times, the Serbian Orthodox Church has often been a subject of deep humiliation. The peak of this came in the 21st century when cases of clerical pedophilia were exposed to the public.
Those we now call interpreters of Christian virtue were, in fact, brutal killers. The clergy of the SPC have walked through rivers of blood to achieve their earthly goals, and unfortunately, this is still the case today.
The book “CONFESSION: HOW WE KILLED GOD” emerges at a moment when the citizens of Serbia are experiencing their greatest defeat and fall in history, closing the doors on democracy and any attempt at revitalizing processes, slowly sliding into a slave society, while church dignitaries try to convince us that this is a special sign of our uniqueness and righteousness.
Today, the SPC is, to our great sorrow, a “destabilizing factor in the regions of the former Yugoslavia.” It is, in essence, not a church but a militant nationalist organization that acts as an instrument of external power dynamics from Serbia and Russia. Consequently, the SPC is devoid of any individual or collective responsibility, and it conceals cases of pedophilia under the guise of misusing God’s mission.
When we add various political entanglements and the complicated legacy of the SPC, it has so far managed to evade effective punitive measures, and its abuse of God’s mission has remained unpunished. We face a dark, difficult, and scandalous topic that leaves no one indifferent. The book calls for alignment and taking a stance.
Without mincing words, I speak of the people I once trusted, addressing the moral quagmire into which the clergy of the SPC has fallen, rolling down a hill where they were meant to help others.
Severe conditions demand harsh truths, especially regarding an area of action they are clearly ill-equipped to handle.
Discussion
The event underscores a critical juncture for the Christian community in Croatia, as it seeks to reclaim its moral authority and address longstanding abuses within religious institutions. The discussions and presentations at the event not only highlighted controversial issues—such as the systemic failure to confront clerical pedophilia and the entanglement of the Serbian Orthodox Church in political machinations—but also emphasized the necessity for transparency and accountability in religious practice. This call for reform resonates with broader societal demands for social justice and ethical governance.
The diverse perspectives presented during the promotion, particularly those of key figures like Mr. Damir Katulić and Mr. Ante Prkačin, reveal a complex interplay between religious values, political realities, and cultural identity. While the Alliance of Christians of Croatia champions the unity of various Christian denominations, it also confronts uncomfortable truths about institutional failures and the consequences these have on community trust. By challenging both the internal practices of the church and the external political forces that shield such misconduct, the event serves as a catalyst for initiating a more honest and constructive public dialogue.
Ultimately, the article advocates for a comprehensive reevaluation of how religious institutions engage with societal issues. It calls for collaborative efforts among government, civil society, and religious organizations to ensure that ethical standards are upheld and that marginalized voices are heard. In doing so, the discussion frames the promotion event not only as a moment of cultural and religious significance but also as a potential turning point toward a more transparent and morally accountable future for Croatia’s Christian community.
Methods
None.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All remains the intellectual property of the author and In-Sight Publishing.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jovanovic, B. (2025, February 15). Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jovanovic-zagreb-pedophilia-serbia
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JOVANOVIC, B. Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jovanovic-zagreb-pedophilia-serbia
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jovanovic, B. 2025. “Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jovanovic-zagreb-pedophilia-serbia
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jovanovic, B. “Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jovanovic-zagreb-pedophilia-serbia
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jovanovic, Bojan. “Zagreb Book Launch Exposes Pedophilia in Serbian Orthodox Church & Unveils New Union of Christians of Croatia.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jovanovic-zagreb-pedophilia-serbia
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format, tailored for a scholarly article. Traditional sections such as Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text, and Discussion are complemented by supplementary sections including Methods, Data Availability, and References. This structured approach ensures both academic rigor and clear presentation of the content.
Dr. Nasser Yousefi The Peace School, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence: Dr. Nasser Yousefi (Email: yosofi.nasser@gmail.com)
Received: January 6, 2025 Accepted: February 15, 2025 Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
Dr. Nasser Yousefi examines Canada’s status as a child-friendly country by evaluating the nation’s policies, social indicators, and international commitments to children’s rights. The article explores how factors such as immigration, economic disparities, and Indigenous challenges intersect with Canada’s adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Drawing on statistical evidence and academic research, Yousefi argues that while Canada demonstrates strengths in areas like survival and development, significant gaps remain in ensuring comprehensive participation and protection for all children.
Keywords: Child Rights, Child-Friendly, Children’s Welfare, Economic Disparities, Immigration, Indigenous Children, International Standards, Policy Evaluation, UNICEF Canada, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Introduction
In this article, Dr. Nasser Yousefi critically assesses whether Canada can be recognized as a child-friendly country by examining its adherence to international child rights standards and the effectiveness of its domestic policies. He discusses how immigration trends, economic factors, and the unique challenges faced by Indigenous communities contribute to the overall well-being of Canadian children. By analyzing data from sources such as UNICEF Canada and other academic studies, Yousefi highlights both the commendable aspects and the deficiencies in Canada’s approach to children’s rights, calling for a renewed commitment from government, academia, and civil society to position Canada as a global leader in child-friendly policies.
Main Text (Interview)
Author: Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Section 1: Overview of Research Insights
Every year, thousands of people from around the world immigrate to Canada. A significant portion of these individuals are families seeking a better life for their children. The Canadian immigration department often prefers families with children, awarding them additional points in the immigration process. Given the importance of population growth, the number of children in Canada has always been a critical factor in governmental planning.
A non-official study by the Humanist Kids Institute reveals that a large group of immigrant families from Iran, China, and Korea consider securing a better future for their children as a primary reason for immigration. Access to better education, healthcare, and rights for their children has been a key factor in their decision to migrate. Similarly, Canadian citizens have always considered the welfare of their children a cornerstone of their societal expectations, urging government officials to address the needs of children in the community comprehensively.
Notably, Canada was among the first countries to sign the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. Canada has consistently positioned itself as an advocate for this convention. Additionally, Canada has signed two optional protocols: The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and The Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography.
The laws, activities, and programs supporting children in Canada are commendable and valuable, creating generally favorable conditions for children. However, as we all know, the concept of “good” is always relative. Good compared to what? In what context? And under what conditions? Therefore, understanding the precise status of children’s rights in Canada requires a framework of standards, indicators, and principles that align with international standards. Declaring a country’s child welfare status as “good” or “bad” without proper scientific and detailed evaluation is neither accurate nor valid.
When assessing children’s rights in Canada against international standards, there seems to be a considerable gap between the quality of children’s lives in Canada and global benchmarks. This situation even appears slightly concerning compared to international standards.
UNICEF Canada has highlighted statistics regarding children’s conditions in Canada that are noteworthy for children’s rights advocates:
Canada ranks 30th out of 38 wealthy countries in terms of child and youth well-being.
20% of children in Canada live in poverty.
1 in 4 sometimes goes to bed or school hungry.
More than a third of young people experience discrimination.
1 in 4 children are regularly bullied.
1 in 5 children faces mental health challenges.
The child homicide rate is one of the highest among wealthy nations.
Canada’s children are worlds apart from the happiest and healthiest children in affluent countries, and inequalities among them are striking. According to UNICEF’s Report Card, Canada ranks among the countries with the best economic conditions for growing up but has some of the poorest outcomes for children and youth.
Moreover, official government statistics in Canada show that 17% of Canadian children suffer from malnutrition, and the rate could be significantly higher among immigrant children based on unofficial data.
Additionally, New Statistics Canada crime data indicate that child victimization intensified during the pandemic:
Reports of offenders luring children online increased by 15%.
Incidents involving the making and distribution of child sexual abuse material rose by 27% compared to pre-pandemic levels.
Similarly, the Public Health Agency of Canada reports concerning findings regarding childcare in the country. The condition of Indigenous children in Canada is even more troubling. Humanium, an international child rights organization based in Switzerland, describes the plight of Indigenous children in Canada:
Indigenous children face a vulnerable and challenging situation regarding their rights under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a party. They generally have less access to education services, which are often delivered in English or French rather than Indigenous languages. This cultural gap also exists in the healthcare system, where Western practices differ significantly from Indigenous healing traditions. Additionally, the precarious living conditions of Indigenous families hinder their access to expensive healthcare services, clean drinking water, and healthy food. Processed and manufactured foods are often the only accessible options, leading to childhood obesity as a significant issue in Indigenous communities.
All these findings are based on formal, academic research. However, informal and unofficial studies could reveal even more concerning statistics about children’s living conditions in Canada, particularly among immigrant families. Delving into the hidden layers of children’s lives may uncover even graver and more worrying realities.
These issues underscore the need for Canada’s government, academia, NGOs, and all child-focused institutions to revisit their policies and programs after 35 years since adopting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Children’s rights advocates in Canada expect the country to become a global leader in child rights, introducing effective strategies and policies to support children. Canada is expected to establish itself as a child-friendly country on the global stage, with its programs and policies serving as models for other nations to emulate.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols emphasize that governments and civil institutions must ensure a dignified life for all children without discrimination. The convention categorizes children’s rights into four main areas:
The Right to Survival, covering basic needs like food, healthcare, shelter, and security.
The Right to Development, encompassing education, cultural, social, artistic, and recreational opportunities for children.
The Right to Protection, ensuring children are safeguarded from abuse, exploitation, and crises.
The Right to Participation, enabling children to engage in decisions affecting their lives actively.
Many child-focused organizations may argue that Canadian children fare well in survival, development, and education. However, even these areas show room for improvement. Furthermore, Canada’s right to participation remains significantly below global standards. In some developing countries, children enjoy better opportunities to participate as active citizens in society and schools. In Canada, public programs—especially schools—offer minimal opportunities for students to engage in educational decision-making.
This highlights the need for children’s rights advocates, alongside governmental and non-governmental organizations, to renew their commitment to advancing children’s rights in Canada. Effective stakeholders such as academics, professionals, librarians, artists, media, and NGO representatives must raise awareness about children’s rights within society. Through collective effort, Canada can aim to be recognized as an internationally child-friendly country.
This call to action invites everyone to work together to position Canada as a global model for child-friendly policies, programs, and principles that other nations can replicate and develop in their societies. Achieving this goal requires a comprehensive and united effort supporting children’s rights.
Discussion
This article highlights the complexities of assessing Canada’s status as a child-friendly country by juxtaposing domestic policy outcomes with international child rights standards. Dr. Yousefi critically examines key indicators such as child poverty, malnutrition, and victimization rates, revealing that despite Canada’s robust legal commitments—such as its early adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—significant gaps remain in ensuring comprehensive well-being for all children. The findings underscore that while economic conditions in Canada may favor children’s survival and development, participation and protection standards lag behind global benchmarks.
The discussion also draws attention to the nuanced challenges faced by various groups, including immigrant and Indigenous children, whose experiences often diverge sharply from national averages. Dr. Yousefi’s analysis suggests that, in many cases, Canada’s policy frameworks do not fully translate into positive outcomes at the grassroots level, leading to stark inequalities. This discrepancy calls for a more rigorous, data-driven evaluation of child welfare policies to identify areas in need of reform and to better align Canada’s practices with international expectations.
Ultimately, the article advocates for a renewed, collective commitment from government, academia, NGOs, and child-focused institutions to elevate Canada’s child rights agenda. By adopting comprehensive standards and implementing targeted reforms, Canada can aspire to become a global leader in creating environments where children not only survive but thrive as active, respected participants in society.
Methods
None.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All remains the intellectual property of the author and In-Sight Publishing.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Yousefi, N. (2025, February 15). Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) YOUSEFI, N. Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format, tailored for a scholarly article. Traditional sections such as Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text, and Discussion are complemented by supplementary sections including Methods, Data Availability, and References. This structured approach ensures both academic rigor and clear presentation of the content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 20, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
Prof. Arie Perliger, Ph.D., a leading authority in security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell’s School of Criminology and Justice Studies, discusses his extensive research on political violence, extremism, and security policy. With over 20 years of experience, his work spans far-right politics, political socialization, and Middle Eastern politics, and integrates social network analysis to address contemporary challenges. Internationally recognized for his contributions, Prof. Perliger also trains counterterrorism practitioners and briefs military and government officials on critical security issues.
Keywords: Antisemitism, Counterterrorism, Extremism, Middle Eastern Politics, Political Socialization, Political Violence, Security Policy, Social Network Analysis
Introduction
In this interview, Prof. Arie Perliger, Ph.D., a distinguished professor of security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, shares his insights drawn from over two decades of research on political violence and extremism. His work, which encompasses far-right politics, political socialization, and Middle Eastern dynamics, has been widely recognized both in academia and on the international stage. Prof. Perliger not only contributes to scholarly debates through his extensive publications and research grants but also actively trains practitioners in counterterrorism and security policy, briefing top military and government officials. This conversation delves into his perspectives on contemporary security challenges, the evolution of political extremism, and the implications of shifting political landscapes in North America and beyond.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Prof. Arie Perliger
Section 1: Overview of Research Insights
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are you saying your accent could be a giveaway?
Prof. Arie Perliger: Luckily, my appearance does not raise suspicion. I can blend in without attracting too much attention if I remain silent.
By the way, Canada was the first country to indict someone on terrorism charges based on misogyny-driven violence. If you recall, Alek Minassian was charged in Toronto.
Jacobsen: Yes, I do remember that.
Perliger: After that case, I was contacted by several Canadian media outlets.
Section 2: Shifts in Political Extremism
Jacobsen: That was after the École Polytechnique massacre, right? Or was that the 2018 van attack?
Perliger: Yes, it was the 2018 attack—he rented a van and drove through a busy street in Toronto. His trial concluded about a year ago, and the indictment explicitly classified the attack as an act of terrorism driven by extremist misogynistic ideology.
Even your national TV network—what is it called, CBC?—interviewed me about it.
Jacobsen: Have you ever worked with The Fifth Estate? They do investigative journalism.
Perliger: I am not sure. I have conducted many interviews with Canadian media and regularly receive interview requests from news outlets in Russia and other countries.
Jacobsen: Interesting.
Perliger: You guys in Canada might get your version of Trump soon. The political landscape is shifting, and given how the polls are split right now, Pierre Poilievre is gaining traction. Because I do not think the Liberals acted too late.
Jacobsen: The five main concerns I have seen in Canadian surveys are immigration, taxes, inflation, mortgage, and rental costs.
At least from my impression, Pierre Poilievre is much smarter, more sophisticated, more well-spoken, and far more knowledgeable than our conservative politicians here in the U.S. He is preferable in that sense. I interviewed another politician. He was a minister, Maxime Bernier.
Perliger: Yes.
Jacobsen: I am doing an educational series with political leaders across the spectrum. I have spoken with representatives from the Christian Heritage Party, the Libertarian Party, the People’s Party of Canada, etc.
I read a lot about these topics, but in an educational context, you depersonalize the questions. Instead of saying, “What do you think?” you phrase it as, “Some people say this—what is your stance?” You also keep the questions open-ended rather than closed. These two principles make political interviews much easier to navigate.
When politicians speak more freely, you start noticing which positions are reasonable and which are not. You also get a more objective view. You are right that Poilievre is certainly more articulate than Donald Trump. However, Trump was never trained in the language of The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.
Perliger: It is a little different.
Jacobsen: Yes, it is different.
Section 3: The Impact of Antisemitism
Perliger: Nonetheless, I do see a dramatic shift among some communities. For example, many Canadian Jews perceive the government’s lack of interest, attention, or willingness to address the sharp rise in antisemitism in Canada as deeply concerning.
Jewish schools and community centers in Montreal are being attacked on a near-weekly basis. The crimes are well-documented. Hate crimes are underreported, but the reality is clear—there has been a significant spike in antisemitic incidents.
Yet Canadian leaders seem extremely reluctant to respond strongly and decisively. This inaction is pushing many traditional Liberal Party voters—especially within historically progressive-leaning minority communities—to reconsider their political loyalties.
We could see a shift where Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative Jewish communities began voting for the Conservative Party of Canada. Not necessarily because they align with its broader political or social ideology but because they feel harassed simply for being Jewish.
They were part of the Liberal Party’s traditional base, but now they feel abandoned. I discuss this frequently in conversations and speaking engagements. I always explain: You cannot blame an entire minority group for the actions of a foreign government located 5,000 miles away.
Jewish Canadians in Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, or anywhere else in Canada have absolutely zero impact on Israeli policies. They do not control Israel’s government. Yet, they are being targeted because of it.
Section 4: Electoral Consequences
Jacobsen: Most of the people in the cities you mentioned are probably doing mushrooms or smoking a hookah.
Perliger: Yes. But blaming and targeting Jewish Canadians for Israel’s policies does not make sense. The real issue is that when antisemitism is met with silence—particularly from groups of Jewish Canadians once considered allies—it creates a profound sense of betrayal. This will have electoral consequences. Again, the Jewish population in Canada is not huge, but in close elections, even a small shift matters.
There was a right-wing leader somewhere—I cannot recall who—who was not hugely popular. However, an 11% shift in voter support completely changed the outcome. That happens all the time. In close elections, small demographic shifts can be decisive.
Jacobsen: I just returned from Ukraine, where I was doing war journalism. A colleague of mine, Anya, is Ukrainian-Jewish, and she connected me with a woman in Israel who works within the intelligence community. It is one of those groups with a friendly-sounding name. Still, in reality, they are linked to serious intelligence networks.
Every year—typically late in the year or at the start of the next—there is a noticeable surge of antisemitic tropes on Meta and other social media platforms. These range from obscure conspiracy theories to newly coined antisemitic slurs I had never encountered before.
One of their ongoing projects is analyzing the sources behind these posts. They have found that 75% of this content originates from bots. The key question is: Who is behind these bots?
One major Jewish organization leader told me his assumption is simple: Russia, Russia, Russia. That may be true, especially given the Ukraine conflict. However, we must identify the sources and understand how to combat them effectively.
Maybe this kind of thing happens in Canada, too. But yes, you are right. It shows up in the hate crime statistics. There have been clear spikes. It is not unreasonable to expect political leaders to take a firm stance against hate.
Perliger: Yes, that should not be too much to ask.
Jacobsen: It also depends on political alliances and the ideological leanings of different parties. Whether a country is Arab-majority, Jewish-majority, or European-majority, political parties tend to align themselves with certain foreign policies and alliances.
Publicly, they all say, “We stand against hate.” Still, their willingness to make strong, explicit statements depends on their broader ideological positions. Generally, conservative parties are more aligned with Israel than liberal parties—at least in the short term.
For some voters, that alignment will be a deciding factor. In early January, I met with my former boss. I was covering a mining conference—and, oddly enough, I was the only media presence there. The event was massive, and the speakers discussed how diamonds and quantum physics could enhance LIDAR and radar technology.
He was frustrated with the slow response to antisemitism. His concern was that these situations can escalate rapidly—like an L.A. wildfire. Once it spreads, it impacts real people, real lives.
Perliger: Yes, that is a valid concern.
Jacobsen: I have heard a lot of interesting stories about this issue.
Perliger: I have family in Vancouver, in one of the suburbs.
Jacobsen: Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Vancouver, North Vancouver, Langley, Abbotsford, White Rock…
I am running out of places.
Stanley Park? Willoughby? South Langley? South Surrey?
Perliger: No.
It is an Indian name.
Jacobsen: Surrey. It has to be Surrey.
Perliger: No, near Surrey. Somewhere between Surrey and Burnaby. That is where Simon Fraser University (SFU) is.
Section 5: Critique of Academic Practices
Perliger: Coquitlam! Yes, it is Coquitlam.
There was an interesting story about a clash between local activists and a politician’s policies. Some activists were protesting against his policies, and there was controversy over using public resources for political purposes. There was an internal conflict within the town, and I am sure this happens in many different towns across Canada regarding similar issues.
Most of the Jewish population in Canada is concentrated in urban areas. Generally speaking, most of my Jewish colleagues live in Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, or New York. We are talking about major cities that tend to be more liberal. By the way, I don’t know if you know this. Still, the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting will be in Vancouver this year.
There was a protest regarding the choice of location. Some argued that Vancouver is extremely expensive and that the conference is inequitable for attendees, particularly junior scholars. Many scholars—especially early-career academics from the East Coast—find attending more difficult because of the high costs.
Jacobsen: Oh, because they are on political science salaries. That explains it.
Perliger: Exactly. Also, it is an international conference, so there will be thousands of foreign academics. Unless there is a large contingent from Japan or other regions, it will be financially challenging for many attendees. But overall, it should be a great conference.
This is a great opportunity to interview many people. Many seminars, events, and panels will also cover various topics. I don’t know how many, but we discuss hundreds of sessions.
The relevant contact information should be on the APSA website. I am not sure exactly how it works for journalists, but there are usually many journalists covering the event—not a huge number, but enough.
Jacobsen: Organizing a conference of this scale must be an enormous job.
Perliger: Yes, it is a full-time job.
Jacobsen: Do the organizers at least get paid for this? Or is it just for prestige?
Perliger: I assume they get compensated in some way. But yes, it is also a prestigious role. There is an exhibition at the conference. I usually wait until the last day of the conference when the presses and publishers do not want to deal with the cost of shipping their books back in boxes. At that point, they start selling books at deep discounts. Sometimes, you can get four, five, or six books for $5 each. It is a great deal.
Jacobsen: I like the jokes about Academia. What do you expect from it? Inflated language for straightforward concepts, followed by conclusions in every research paper that say, “This warrants further study.”
Perliger: I am not a big fan of academia in any way, shape, or form. Believe me, I have many issues with academia. But at the end of the day, it is the best system we have. Could you imagine an alternative? A university-free model of research and education? Would you support that?
I do not complain too much, but I do. The idea that academia is some perfect system is nonsense. It is full of rituals, performances, and completely irrational practices that I can barely tolerate anymore.
There is so much excess in academia, so much bureaucratic bloat. I support science and research, but we need to cut the fat.
Section 6: The Role of Academia in Political Discourse
Jacobsen: The real issue is over-administration. Universities have too many administrators, and their presence inflates costs and complicates everything.
Perliger: At the same time, academic disciplines are no longer about science or research. They are political activism under the guise of scholarship. If someone wants to be a political activist, they should go into politics—not pretend they are doing scientific research.
And I can tell you from experience: The least productive academics are always the most politically engaged ones. They do nothing but complain that they are not valued enough. There is a strong correlation there.
Jacobsen: Who do most physicists and mathematicians consider the greatest living physicist today?
Perliger: Probably Roger Penrose.
Jacobsen: I have heard that some say it is Edward Witten.
Perliger: Ah, yes. Penrose is highly respected, but Witten is considered one of the greatest minds.
Jacobsen: He is the only physicist to have ever won the Fields Medal—the top prize in mathematics.
Perliger: Yes, Edward Witten is an amazing scholar. However, I would argue that Edward Witten is one of the main figures responsible for the stagnation in modern physics—potentially.
Jacobsen: But I only bring up his name to make a broader point. Penrose could also serve as a placeholder in this context—it just means “top-tier intellectual,” someone working on concepts few people truly understand. You rarely hear from him, which is indicative of that status.
Perliger: I was privileged and responsible for serving on my university’s promotion and tenure committees at different levels. I decided with other committee members whether someone deserved promotion, tenure, etc. There is not just one committee—there are multiple levels, including the departmental committee, college committee, university committee, and the dean’s office. Each stage provides input, and someone has to decide yes or no at every point.
One thing I learned from this experience is that there are many people I would have fired yesterday because they contribute nothing—neither as researchers nor as effective teachers. Yet, they remain in the system because they know how to work it. There is also an entire contingent of academics who exploit academia to engage in political activism rather than scholarship.
They damage academia and science by creating the false impression that universities are nothing more than ideological enclaves filled with people who care more about their politics than their research. This further erodes trust in academia.
If professors treat their classes as opportunities to indoctrinate rather than teach critical thinking, analytical skills, and objective reasoning, they abuse academia.
Section 7: Concluding Reflections
Jacobsen: Yes. And while they have the right as U.S. citizens to protest and speak out on political issues, using their academic title to legitimize political activism is problematic.
Perliger: Exactly. I can have personal views on the conflict between China and Taiwan or on South Asian politics, but I am not an expert in those fields. My opinions hold no more weight than any random person on the street.
Yet many academics—whose careers are based on simplistic, superficial analyses of complex issues—believe they are qualified to speak authoritatively on everything, even when they lack expertise or deep understanding. That level of intellectual arrogance is astonishing.
I have had many fights with my provost, chancellor, and dean when I called out these people. I am not afraid to confront my colleagues when they misuse academia.
Jacobsen: Well, you are a tenured full professor.
Perliger: Exactly. I am one of the most protected individuals outside of the Supreme Court. So, if people like me do not speak up, who will?
Jacobsen: That is the right attitude. The First Amendment is great.
Perliger: I will use it fully.
Jacobsen: So is Kanye West right now—he is running social experiments.
Perliger: No, he is pushing the Overton Window. And another crybaby was the guy who got fired from Harvard.
Discussion
This interview with Prof. Arie Perliger offers an incisive look into the complex interplay of political violence, extremism, and security policy. Drawing on over two decades of research, Prof. Perliger illuminates how shifts in political socialization and the rise of far-right ideologies are reshaping security landscapes, particularly in North America. His observations on the increasing incidence of antisemitism in Canada and the corresponding electoral shifts among minority communities underscore the profound societal impacts of inaction by political leaders.
Prof. Perliger also critiques the evolving nature of academia, highlighting how political activism is increasingly conflated with scholarly research. He notes that while academia has long been a forum for intellectual debate, the misuse of academic credentials to promote ideologically driven agendas undermines critical thinking and erodes public trust. His reflections reveal a deep concern for how these trends not only compromise academic integrity but also influence broader political and security policies.
Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for clear, objective responses to contemporary security challenges. Prof. Perliger advocates for a balanced approach that upholds rigorous academic inquiry while addressing pressing societal issues, such as hate crimes and political polarization. His insights provide valuable context for understanding the intersection of political extremism, social dynamics, and security policy, and call for more decisive actions by political and academic leaders to foster an environment of transparency and accountability.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Prof. Arie Perliger for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 15). Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 21, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig, a distinguished researcher in artificial intelligence, computational neuroscience, and robotics, discusses his journey from pioneering neural simulation tools to co-founding Thesify.ai—an ethical academic writing support platform. He outlines his work on spiking neural networks, contributions to large-scale projects like the Blue Brain Project and the Human Brain Project, and his commitment to responsible AI usage. Emphasizing transparency and the importance of human creativity in an era increasingly influenced by AI, Dr. Gewaltig advocates for clear distinctions between human-generated and AI-generated content in both public and academic contexts.
Keywords: Academic Innovation, AI Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, Computational Neuroscience, Ethical Academic Writing, Human Brain Project, Neural Simulation, Neurorobotics, Robotics, Thesify.ai
Introduction
In this interview, Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig—a leading researcher in artificial intelligence, computational neuroscience, and robotics—shares insights from his extensive career in both academic and applied research. A co-developer of the Neural Simulation Tool (NEST) and co-founder of Thesify.ai, Dr. Gewaltig has significantly contributed to projects like the Blue Brain Project and the Human Brain Project. His work bridges cutting-edge technology and ethical considerations, aiming to enhance human creativity rather than replace it. Throughout the discussion, he emphasizes the need for transparency in AI usage, particularly in distinguishing between human and machine-generated content, and reflects on the evolving role of AI in academic innovation.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig
Section 1: Introducing the Interview
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig. He is a distinguished researcher in artificial intelligence, robotics, and computational neuroscience. That’s an impressive array of expertise. Dr. Gewaltig co-founded the neural simulation tool NEST, which is widely used for large-scale simulations of spiking neural networks. So, my first question is: Why did you initially focus on artificial neural networks, artificial intelligence, and related fields? These complex subjects have become central to mainstream conversations and culture.
Section 2: Early AI Research and Neural Networks
Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig: An AI wave was already happening when I began studying. It was just after the so-called AI winter. In my hometown, an institute called the Institute for Neuroinformatics was founded. At that time, the term “AI” was essentially taboo. You couldn’t refer to anything as AI; it was viewed with skepticism, almost like esotericism. Instead, the field was called “neuroinformatics” or “intelligent systems.” Despite this, it sounded incredibly exciting.
A friend and I decided to understand how intelligence works. That curiosity led us to study spiking neural networks. Traditional neural networks, as they were understood at the time—and still are, to some extent—stemmed from abstractions of the brain developed in the 1940s. However, we were far more interested in understanding how the brain works.
Real neurons don’t operate based on a simple function that translates input values into output values. Instead, they behave more like muscle cells with electrical activity. Each neuron receives numerous signals from other neurons but only responds if its input is sufficiently strong and synchronous in time. If many neighbouring neurons fire simultaneously, the neuron will also fire.
That’s how the brain functions. Then, the synapses—the connections between nerve cells—are modified whenever two neighbouring cells fire together. This process, known as plasticity, is what biologists call learning. That’s how I became involved in this field. I also learned a great deal about how the visual system processes information.
For instance, how do photons hitting the retina lead to the perception of an image, such as the computer screen in front of you? If you see something you like, how does that visual input translate into the urge to stretch out your arm, press a key on the keyboard, and press exactly the right key?
So that is what I have been interested in most of my life. Of course, as a scientist, you have to publish what you’re writing and researching. When ChatGPT and similar tools were released, we quickly asked ourselves: “Okay, that’s a cool technology. You can use it in unintelligent ways, but you can also use it in smart ways. What happens if everyone has AI? Do we still write? And if so, how?”
That’s why we founded Thessify.ai. The answer to the first question is: Yes, we will still write. AI can generate text based on the model it has been trained on but cannot capture what is in my mind. If you are a researcher, an author, or a scientist, you have ideas you want to express and communicate.
Somehow, you have to guide the AI to write what you want rather than letting the AI write what it decides. Anyone who has used ChatGPT will notice it can be challenging to get it to produce what you want. It’s like working with a ghostwriter with a very strong opinion and convincing him to follow your desired style or direction is difficult.
I often say having AI write for you is like having AI listen to music for you.
Section 3: Generative AI as Synthesizer
Jacobsen: Oh, that’s good. I like that. That’s a very clear image.
Gewaltig: Yes, because with AI, you neither experience the process nor benefit directly. Essentially, you’re using a proxy and placing full trust in it. That can work if you have nothing substantial to say.
However, if you have something meaningful to communicate, your voice needs to come through, whether on the screen or paper. So, you still have to write yourself. The real question is: If you have tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or similar AI systems, how do you ensure they help you convey your message? How do you write what you truly want to communicate?
First, you still need to understand what makes a good piece of writing. Another metaphor I like to use is that generative AI is like a synthesizer or sampler in music. It can generate synthetic text just as a synthesizer can produce synthetic music.
However, a musician must know what constitutes a good composition. What’s the structure of a document? For example, a news article has a very different structure from a bedtime story—at least, it should. You still have to learn these foundational elements.
Once you understand the craft, you can use tools, like instruments, to assist with your writing. ChatGPT is an advanced musical instrument for text. That’s how I see it—you must learn how to play it.
This is where education will need to evolve. You can produce music much faster with a synthesizer, just like generating text faster with generative AI.
The virtuosity required to create has changed. For example, 200 years ago, being a good musician required mastering the piano, violin, or another instrument. There was a specific craft and mastery involved. With electronic music, much of that has changed.
Today, if you understand music theory, you can easily create electronic music from a technical standpoint. However, it is still difficult because it requires creativity. Many people don’t realize we must find ways to maintain creativity and bring it to life using modern tools.
Section 4: Thesify
Jacobsen: What is the origin of the name Thesify? How do you “bring it to life” ethically using a musical example in the context of an advanced textual synthesizer? I mean both the principles of ethics or morality behind the concept and the application of that within–typically termed–narrow artificial intelligence, specifically using large language models.
Gewaltig: The name Thesify comes from the word “thesis.” As a scientist, you must write a bachelor’s thesis, a master’s thesis, and a PhD thesis—so three theses. We use AI to help you complete your thesis, but not in a way that undermines your writing ability. Instead, we aim to train and strengthen your writing skills. A metaphor was used—I forget the author, but it was in The New Yorker. It described using generative AI in education as bringing a forklift to the weight room.
This is where education might need to shift or reconsider its approach. At Thesify, we assist students in writing their theses by addressing a specific challenge every student encounters. Imagine you have a thesis draft and take it to your supervisor or Professor for feedback.
You ask, “Professor, here’s my draft. Can you review it and let me know if it’s good and what I should change?” Then the Professor says “yes” but promptly disappears for six months, attending conferences. As a student, I find this delay very frustrating. This is where Thesify steps in. We will provide the feedback that your Professor should give you. You upload your draft, and we analyze it as if through the eyes of a reviewer.
We assess whether your thesis has a clear statement if there’s a targeted message behind it, whether the argumentation is straightforward, and if there are any gaps in your reasoning. We also consider whether you’ve left out counterarguments that you should address.
We provide a detailed list of actionable points to improve your writing for the next revision. For example, highlight where your argument lacks evidence or where you need to make your reasoning more conclusive. We suggest you provide supporting evidence if you’ve made a factual statement that isn’t common knowledge.
Additionally, we can point users to relevant literature that addresses particular statements or gaps in their argumentation. Essentially, we engage the user in a feedback loop. You upload your manuscript, receive a to-do list for improvement, and return with the revised version once you’ve addressed the criticism.
This system isn’t a chatbot—you can’t ask it to generate text for you or answer general questions. That functionality is already available in tools like Google Docs, so there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Thesify offers something different: highly structured, consistent feedback, which is difficult to find elsewhere.
This level of detailed, constructive critique is what makes Thesify stand out.
Section 5: History of Tools
Jacobsen: In North America, much of the commentary in public media tends to focus on prominent figures—Ray Kurzweil, Eric Schmidt, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and so on. However, your approach seems unique regarding specifics, particularly regarding a particular aspect of an AI system, such as analyzing a thesis with clear boundaries.
It’s a very interesting way to address these issues. Discussions about AI ethics often revolve around broad fears, like avoiding the so-called non-zero chances of a Terminator future. These fears are easily amplified, particularly in North America.
Your description clearly demonstrates how ethics can be embedded in a product with a specific purpose, making it actionable. Do you see this approach expanding into other academic areas beyond thesis feedback?
Gewaltig: Yes. If we look at the history of tools, they’ve always transitioned from being in the limelight to becoming almost invisible, operating seamlessly in the background.
Take cameras, for example. Manufacturers advertised features like autofocus, red-eye reduction, and other technical details twenty years ago. Today, you have a camera. That’s it. Don’t worry about those features; they’re built in and work without much attention.
Interestingly, many of these features rely on AI technologies, but they are no longer labelled as AI. Most AI uses will eventually become invisible to users. They already are. For example, any video conferencing system now incorporates AI in the background—to adjust volume, cancel out noise, and perform other functions.
But you don’t need general AI for this. What you need are very specific tools with precise solutions for particular problems. Everything else is often just a marketing ploy.
Section 6: Overselling AI
Jacobsen: Do you think there is a cultural tendency, particularly in the West and among AI communities, to overstate and oversell what is referred to as AI? Or do you find their assessments accurate?
Gewaltig: There is a vast amount of overselling. Big tech companies have a huge incentive to do this because it fuels their stock valuations. The promise of future advancements drives their sky-high stock prices—being the winner in the so-called AI race, and so on.
However, when you look at concrete use cases, making AI work accurately and reliably for a specific purpose is often much harder than people realize.
Take your phone’s photo app, for example. It classifies images like flowers, buildings, or people. There are no high stakes involved. If an image is in the wrong folder, it doesn’t matter much.
However, the stakes are extremely high for applications like autonomous driving. If pedestrian recognition fails—a false negative where the system doesn’t recognize a pedestrian—it could have fatal consequences. On the other hand, a false positive, where the car stops unnecessarily, is far less serious.
The issue of false positives and negatives is critical, yet they’re often conflated into a single measure of quality, which is a mistake. The consequences of these errors are context-dependent and can vary widely.
For instance, in autonomous driving, a false negative that fails to detect a pedestrian can be lethal, while a false positive that causes an unnecessary stop is merely inconvenient.
In academia, tools like Turnitin, which some institutions use to detect AI-generated text, illustrate this issue. These tools have a false positive rate of around four percent. That might not sound like much, but it means that out of 100 students, four could be wrongly accused of cheating.
In some cases, students have been expelled from their schools or universities. That’s a significant consequence of an error rate that, at first glance, seems minor.
Section 7: Ethical Considerations in AI Usage
Jacobsen: So, if you have, for instance, 40,000 students, four percent is quite a significant number over time.
Gewaltig: It is quite significant after a while, yes. And this highlights an important point. When considering use cases for AI, you always have to ask: Where can it go wrong, and where can it go right?
Many AI technologies work to some degree, but they don’t function with the level of accuracy we typically expect from computers. Of course, humans make errors, too, but only humans can be held accountable for their mistakes. Machines cannot bear responsibility. This ties into liability issues and how we approach litigation and related concerns.
Specific use cases are where real value is generated. This is true now, not just in the future. Everything else—grandiose claims, flashy showcases—are just demonstrations. Nothing more.
Section 8: Concluding Insights and Reflections
Jacobsen: What areas should the public focus on critically when it comes to the use of AI and claims about AI? This includes how AI is defined and discussed in public discourse.
Gewaltig: One of the most important aspects is transparency about where AI is used. Consider social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram. Recently, there’s been news that Meta plans to deploy numerous AI-generated profiles.
It should always be clear whether a profile belongs to a human or was generated by AI. Similarly, when you receive an email, a message or a phone call, it must be evident whether a human or an AI agent sent it. Transparency is crucial. Society needs clarity on whether people engage authentically or are “posing” with AI-generated content.
Using AI to write unthinkingly is posing—it’s not a genuine creation. That’s why I believe relying heavily on AI for customer relations, for example, is a short-sighted strategy. Humans are surprisingly adept at recognizing the tone and style of machine-generated text. If you’re aware of AI, you can usually tell whether a human or a machine wrote a message.
Jacobsen: That’s a whole conversation—whether we can develop, for lack of a better term, a “universal capture” for distinguishing human identity from artificial identity. But, yes. Dr. Gewaltig, thank you very much for your time and this opportunity. It was a pleasure meeting you. Thank you again for your time, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.
Gewaltig: Thank you as well. It was very interesting, and I wish you all the best for Canada.
Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s morning here, so the day is just getting started.
Gewaltig: All the best with your packed schedule of interviews today.
Discussion
This interview with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig offers a compelling exploration into the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence and its ethical applications in academic and creative contexts. Dr. Gewaltig’s journey—from his early work on spiking neural networks and neural simulation tools to co-founding Thesify.ai—highlights the dynamic interplay between technological innovation and ethical responsibility. His reflections on the transformation of AI research since the so-called AI winter underscore both the promise and the pitfalls inherent in rapidly advancing technology.
Dr. Gewaltig emphasizes that while AI can significantly accelerate tasks such as academic writing and data analysis, it cannot replicate the nuanced insights and creativity that stem from genuine human thought. He draws compelling parallels between AI’s role in text generation and the use of musical synthesizers, illustrating that effective use of AI requires not only technical proficiency but also a deep understanding of the underlying craft. This perspective is critical in an era where the authenticity of content is increasingly scrutinized, and where the boundary between human and machine output must be clearly defined to maintain trust in academic and public discourse.
The discussion also raises important considerations about transparency and accountability in AI deployment. Dr. Gewaltig advocates for clear distinctions between human-generated and AI-generated content, a stance that is particularly relevant given the proliferation of AI tools in various fields. His insights call for a balanced approach—leveraging the benefits of AI to enhance productivity and creativity, while rigorously upholding ethical standards to ensure that human voice and intellectual contribution remain at the forefront. This balanced perspective is essential for guiding future policy and educational strategies as AI continues to integrate into our daily lives.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 15). Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig on Practical Applications of AI, Instead [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/gewaltig-thesify
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 23, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
Bradlee Whidden, a Senior Policy Analyst for Western Canada at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discusses the concerning decline in capital investments among Canadian small businesses over the past decade. Highlighting a 16% drop in spending on machinery and equipment—amounting to $1,178 less per private sector worker—Whidden examines how policies such as provincial sales taxes in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, as well as federal measures affecting capital gains taxation, have contributed to Canada’s slide from being the second best to the second worst among G7 nations in productivity. He argues that addressing interprovincial trade barriers, streamlining permitting processes, reducing red tape, and maintaining key investment incentives are critical to reversing this trend and boosting overall productivity.
Keywords: Capital Investments, Corporate Income Tax, Declining Investment, G7 Countries, Investment Incentives, Machinery and Equipment, Productivity, Provincial Sales Tax, Small Businesses, Western Canada
Introduction
In this interview, Bradlee Whidden, a Senior Policy Analyst for Western Canada at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), provides an in-depth analysis of the declining capital investments in Canadian small businesses—a trend that has significant implications for the nation’s productivity. Based in Calgary, Whidden collaborates with government stakeholders to support small businesses and has observed a consistent decrease in investments in machinery and equipment since 2013, a trend that sharply intensified following the oil price crash in 2015.
Whidden explains that one of the major contributing factors to this decline is the imposition of provincial sales taxes on capital investments in provinces like British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which artificially inflate costs for small business owners. Additionally, he points out that changes in federal policies—such as adjustments to capital gains taxation thresholds and the gradual phasing out of investment incentives like immediate expensing and the Accelerated Investment Incentive—further discourage much-needed investments. These policy challenges, coupled with economic uncertainties and regulatory red tape, have resulted in Canadian workers producing significantly less per hour compared to their G7 counterparts.
The discussion also emphasizes the broader economic impact of these trends, noting that the reduced investment in essential tools and equipment has far-reaching consequences for productivity and competitiveness. Whidden stresses the urgent need for coordinated policy reforms at both provincial and federal levels to create a more favorable investment climate, reduce operational costs, and ultimately spur economic growth in Western Canada and beyond.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Bradlee Whidden
Section 1: Introducing the Landscape
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Bradlee Whidden. He is a Senior Policy Analyst for Western Canada at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). CFIB, headquartered in Toronto, has offices across all provinces. Bradlee is based in Calgary and works out of the Calgary office. He collaborates with various levels of government to support small businesses, focusing on areas such as investment, internal trade, regulation, and property taxes. He joined CFIB as an intern in 2023, authored property tax reports for Alberta and British Columbia, and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Political Science from the University of Calgary. A new report from CFIB examines the decline of capital investments among Canadian small businesses. The report shows that 32% of small businesses expect to reduce capital investments over the next two years. This stood out to me while looking for stories to explore further. What’s happening with this decline in small business capital investment in Canada projected over the next few years?
Section 2: Investment Trends Over the Decade
Bradlee Whidden: Over the last decade, investment in machinery and equipment per average private sector worker has declined. Specifically, it has decreased by about 16%, equivalent to $1,178. That’s $1,178 less spent on tools like power drills, tractors, conveyor belts, or other machinery workers rely on to make their jobs easier and more productive. Looking ahead, we expect this to worsen, as 32% of small businesses anticipate decreasing their capital investments over the next two years, a larger percentage than those expecting to increase investments.
Section 3: The Oil Price Crash Effect
Jacobsen: So, the declining machinery and equipment spending per worker isn’t new?
Whidden: That’s correct. We observed this trend since 2013 but it became significantly more pronounced in 2015 with the oil price crash. That said, the United States experienced this as well, but we didn’t see the same drop in investment there as we did here. This suggests that other factors beyond global economic conditions contributed to Canada’s decline.
Section 4: The Role of Provincial Sales Taxes
Jacobsen: If we focus on provinces like British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, why are high equipment costs, taxes, and cash flow issues significant factors?
Whidden: The government plays a role in shaping the policy environment. For instance, governments tax business investments in machinery and equipment in the three western provinces you mentioned—BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. We’ve seen these same machinery and equipment purchases decline over the past decade.
BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all impose provincial sales taxes that artificially raise the price of these investments. This is something we don’t see in any other province. It’s especially concerning given that this decline in capital investment is worse in Western Canada, and it’s exacerbated by policies where each province’s sales tax is applied to these purchases. In other provinces, businesses can get an input tax credit to write off or offset those costs.
Section 5: International Productivity Comparisons
Jacobsen: How does this machinery and equipment spending drop compare to other G7 nations?
Whidden: Well, I can’t speak to productivity directly or provide an exact comparison of machinery and equipment investment across the G7. However, Canada is now second last among all G7 countries. This is a far cry from the 1970s when we were second best.
So, we’ve dropped from second best to second worst. This decline can be attributed to decreased investment in machinery and equipment. Businesses want to be more productive, and they want their workers to produce more for less. Tools and equipment—like power drills, tractors, conveyor belts, computers, and AI—help workers be more productive and produce more per hour. Unfortunately, the average Canadian worker only produces $53 per hour. The G7 average is $61 per hour, and the United States is significantly higher than that.
Section 6: Impact of Federal Policy Changes
Jacobsen: Why is Canada overall less productive?
Whidden: It can’t simply be due to a lack of investment in machinery and equipment, though that is a major factor. Reversing this trend wouldn’t fix the problem overnight but would go a long way toward helping.
When we discuss the productivity problem, we also target other policies, particularly those from the federal government. For instance, the federal government’s decision to increase the capital gains taxation threshold dissuades investment. Business owners face a larger tax bill if those assets appreciate.
The federal government has previously recognized the importance of incentivizing investment. Programs like the immediate expensing and the Accelerated Investment Incentive were designed to help. Still, those are being phased out starting this year, sowe expect the problem to worsen.%
Jacobsen: Can you provide an example to illustrate this point?
Whidden: Of course. We did some calculations based on those three provinces—BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. We found that exempting capital investments from their PSTs would boost investment by about 17%, or over $2 billion. That’s $2 billion in new investment in just those three provinces alone.
Section 7: Regulatory Challenges and Red Tape
Jacobsen: What about measures like faster permitting and processing of infrastructure projects? Could that boost productivity for Canadian workers?
Whidden: Absolutely. As we’ve pointed out, red tape is a major issue here. When business owners are stuck filling out forms or waiting for permits, they’re not using their time for more productive activities, such as investing in their businesses.
Section 8: Small Business Investment
Jacobsen: How can all levels of government prioritize policies to support small business investment and improve productivity?
Whidden: Governments at all levels must focus on creating a more investment-friendly environment. This includes removing disincentives like provincial sales taxes on capital investments, simplifying the permitting process, reducing red tape, and maintaining programs incentivizing investment. By doing so, they can help businesses make the kinds of investments that drive productivity and economic growth.
Whidden: Well, to be honest, this is nothing new, but we can’t forget about corporate income taxes. To be completely straightforward, it’s money that would otherwise go toward investing in the business but is instead being taxed by both provincial and federal governments. When we’ve polled our members—and if you’d like, I can provide detailed survey results about what business owners would do with savings from a tax cut—we’ve seen that they would hire more employees, train staff, and expand their businesses. We want to see these things in a healthy, growing economy.
Jacobsen: CFIB recommends making the Accelerated Investment Incentive and Immediate Expensing measures permanent to simplify them. What would those steps look like?
Whidden: Our recommendation is straightforward: don’t phase them out as planned. The fall economic statement did propose keeping some parts of these measures permanent, particularly for manufacturing, which is great to see. However, it’s not legislated yet, so as it stands, these measures are still set to be phased out. We’d like to see what the fall economic statement proposed. Simplifying these measures and making them more accessible for business owners would also be highly beneficial.
Section 9: Potential Policy Reforms
Jacobsen: How can governments address cash flow constraints faced by small businesses to encourage more capital investment?
Whidden: That’s tough because much of it is tied to the global economic environment. Don’t get me wrong, policy plays a significant role, too, but economic uncertainty has dominated the last few years. Ultimately, it comes back to lowering living costs through tax cuts for individuals and small businesses. On the small business side, corporate income tax is undoubtedly significant.
The survey results show that many small business owners would use savings from a tax cut to lower prices. However, on the consumer side, lowering costs through personal income tax reductions is just as important.
Jacobsen: That is equivalent to $1,178 per private sector worker, and that’s only within a decade?
Whidden: That’s right.
Jacobsen: So, that number, given the stop point of 2023, would likely be higher if this carried-forward trend extends into 2025. Is that correct?
Whidden: Well, we can’t say for certain because we based our study on the most recent data available, and the 2023 data was released just a few months ago. So we had good timing with that release. We expect, however, that if you extend this trend to 2024 and 2025, the problem will not have improved. It has likely worsened, given that 32% of small businesses expect their investment in machinery and equipment to decrease. In comparison, only 18% expect it to increase.
Jacobsen: That’s concerning.
Whidden: Yes, and the other issue is that we’re not seeing investment stagnate but actively decline. If Canada wants to keep up with countries like the United States and other G7 nations, we need to see those investment numbers increase.
Section 10: Concluding Insights and the Road Ahead
Jacobsen: If we take that trend line, along with business expectations and sentiment from the survey, what would be a reasonable timeline to reverse this long-term trend? Are we looking at another decade to return to baseline productivity levels, assuming the factors that reduced productivity from 2013 to 2023 were no longer in play?
Whidden: It’s hard to say because there are so many unknowns. For example, if tariffs are levelled against the Canadian economy this year, it will be significantly harder to recover. Even without that scenario, Canadian governments need to step in to reduce taxes and address interprovincial trade barriers, which cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars annually.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Are there any areas we haven’t addressed that should be highlighted?
Whidden: One key point I’d like to clarify is the concept of productivity. Many people mistakenly think productivity means working harder or longer hours, but that’s untrue. Productivity is about how much is produced for a given level of input. It’s not about working harder but working smarter and more efficiently. We use tools and technologies that help us produce more with the same or less effort.
Jacobsen: What are some of the findings from the recent study in 2024 or even more recently?
Whidden: We do have a blog post that has relevant numbers. You can see relevant survey results in the very first chart. See here:
Jacobsen: Thank you, Bradlee, for your opportunity and time today.
Discussion
This interview with Bradlee Whidden sheds light on the multifaceted challenges Canadian small businesses face amid a persistent decline in capital investments. The conversation highlights how a 16% drop in spending on machinery and equipment—equivalent to $1,178 less per private sector worker—has profound implications for productivity and competitiveness. Factors such as the pronounced effects of the 2015 oil price crash and the burden of provincial sales taxes in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are identified as key contributors to this trend, emphasizing that the issue extends beyond mere global economic conditions.
Whidden’s insights underscore the critical role that policy environments play in shaping business investment decisions. Federal measures, including adjustments to capital gains taxation and the phasing out of incentives like immediate expensing and the Accelerated Investment Incentive, have compounded the problem, while cumbersome regulatory processes further drain resources and stifle productivity gains. The interview also contrasts Canada’s current standing—now second worst among G7 nations—with its historical position as a leading economy, illustrating the stark impact of sustained underinvestment on overall economic performance.
Looking ahead, the discussion points to a pressing need for comprehensive policy reforms to create a more investment-friendly climate. By eliminating disincentives such as provincial sales taxes on capital investments and streamlining regulatory processes, the government could stimulate significant capital infusion, as demonstrated by projections of a potential 17% boost in investments in key provinces. Such coordinated actions are essential for reversing current trends, enhancing worker productivity, and restoring Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author extends sincere gratitude to Bradlee Whidden for his time and invaluable insights, which have significantly enriched the content of this interview.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 15). Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Bradlee Whidden on Declining Investments Facing Canadian Small Businesses [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/whidden-investments
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 15, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview with Filip Perkon, the Chief Drake of Duck World, explores his remarkable pivot from a career in finance and event consultancy to launching a niche experiential retail phenomenon. A graduate of the London School of Economics with early stints at BNP Paribas and Synergy Innovation VC, Perkon channeled his entrepreneurial spirit into creating Perkon Productions before embracing a new venture during the global pandemic. Alongside his partner Irene, he transformed a moment of inspiration into Duck World—a retailer that offers over 800 varieties of collectible rubber ducks, merging art, play, and interactive customer experiences. The conversation delves into his journey, the strategic shift to experiential retail, and the emergence of grassroots movements like Jeep Ducking and cruising ducks, which further embody Duck World’s mission to spread joy in an increasingly digital age.
In an era marked by rapid digital transformation and the decline of traditional retail, Filip Perkon’s innovative approach has redefined what it means to shop for a collectible. With an academic foundation from the London School of Economics and professional beginnings in high finance and venture capital, Perkon’s career took a dramatic turn during the COVID-19 pandemic. The abrupt halt of large-scale events—a realm where he had long thrived with Perkon Productions—forced him and his partner Irene to seek alternative avenues to channel their passion for creating memorable experiences.
Their journey led to the birth of Duck World, a brand that transforms the simple act of collecting rubber ducks into an immersive, multisensory experience. Drawing on Irene’s lifelong affection for these quirky toys, Duck World quickly evolved from a playful pop-up experiment into a thriving chain of experiential retail stores. Each location is designed not only to display over 800 distinctive duck varieties but also to offer interactive installations, artist collaborations, and community-driven events like Jeep Ducking and cruising ducks.
This interview provides an in-depth look at Perkon’s transition from the structured world of finance to the boundless creativity of experiential retail. It explores how Duck World differentiates itself from conventional toy retailers by offering an engaging, tactile experience that challenges the norm of online shopping. Through candid insights and detailed narratives, Perkon shares the challenges and triumphs of building a brand that is as much about fostering joy and community as it is about selling a product.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Filip Perkon
Section 1: Setting the Stage – Introducing Duck World
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Filip Perkon, the Chief Drake of Duck World. He is a dynamic entrepreneur, angel investor, and co-founder of Duck World, a leading retailer of collectible rubber ducks. This niche product has a unique appeal.
I have a few questions regarding the founding of Duck World with his partner, Irene. First, why ducks? Second, why focus on rubber ducks as the company’s product? This isn’t a typical product—it’s very specific in terms of its appeal. I’m curious to know more.
Section 2: From Finance to Events – Early Career Insights
Perkon: I have run Perkon Productions for many years, organizing events, parties, conferences, red-carpet premieres, and other large scale events. I began this career at 17 and have always been passionate about entertaining people and creating experiences.
When COVID-19 struck, my business came to a complete halt. Based in the UK, I experienced multiple lockdowns, which made organizing events impossible for nearly two years. My partner Irene was also deeply involved in the events industry, focusing on nightlife, parties, and evening events. Both of us realized we needed to pivot to something new.
After many years in the events industry, the transition was challenging. Irene began searching for new endeavors while I explored startup ideas. I had left the corporate world long ago to pursue work I was passionate about. After a year of searching, I struggled to pick a project that I was super excited about.
Section 3: Inspiration Strikes – The Rubber Duck Revelation
During a visit to Spain to see my family, we experienced a moment of inspiration. Irene was with me, and while walking through Madrid, we spotted a shop window filled with rubber ducks. Irene rushed into the store and bought many of the ducks they had. Puzzled, I asked why she was buying so many rubber ducks. She explained that she had been a lifelong collector of rubber ducks because they made her smile and were fun. She kept them in her bathroom and around her flat as reminders of places she had visited.
I then asked her why she didn’t buy rubber ducks in London. Irene replied that there wasn’t a a palce to buy them in the city. This sparked an idea. I would like to know if this is an opportunity for us. We joked about opening an experiential store—a “world of ducks”—where people could immerse themselves in rubber duck collecting. The idea started as playful banter, but the more we thought about it, the more serious it became.
We opened our first pop-up store within a month when we returned to London. Initially, it was a lighthearted experiment, but it soon became clear that we had tapped into something special.
I think I was originally open to the idea because when I was a boy in Sweden—I’m from Stockholm—there was an event called the Water Festival that happened every year in central Stockholm. During the festival, they released thousands of rubber ducks for a charity race. I remember that one of my first toys was a plushie in the form of a rubber duck. Subconsciously, I think I was always open to the idea of working with ducks, and in general, with toys.
I understand this now because my mother reminded me, saying, “You’ve always loved ducks. Remember when you were three years old, you adored them?” So, fast forward to when we opened our first store. On the first day, we had a stampede of people walking in and adoting our designer rubber ducks.
We realized this idea resonated with people and fulfilled a need in the general population of London. We opened our first store, then a second, third, fourth, and fifth. In December, we opened our first U.S. store, which has now become the largest rubber duck store in the country. Today, we host more than 800 varieties of rubber ducks. That’s how it all came together.
Section 4: The Pandemic Pivot – Facing New Challenges
Jacobsen: Could you elaborate on Jeep ducking and the cruising duck’s phenomenon? Also, in that context, what distinguishes an experiential retail experience from traditional toy stores?
Perkon: We discovered Jeep Ducking in parallel with creating our stores. As we began researching rubber ducks—who designs them, what they’re made of, where they’re produced, and who cares about them—we learned about a grassroots movement that started in Canada. It’s called Jeep Ducking.
Jeep owners place rubber ducks on other Jeeps as a sign of respect, community, and fun. It’s about spreading smiles and joy. This movement started about five years ago, initiated by a lady in Canada during the pandemic, and it has gone viral over the last few years. Now, in the Jeep community, people exchange rubber ducks.
You’ll often see Jeeps in Canada and the U.S. with dashboards filled with rubber ducks. The more ducks you have, the cooler you are in the community. People are eager to be “ducked,” as they call it, so they clean their Jeeps, display the ducks on the dashboard and make them look nice, as it attracts the ¨Ducking¨. It’s all about community, paying it forward, and adding a touch of fun to life, especially in the grim aftermath of COVID-19.
Cruising ducks is a similar phenomenon. It has really taken off in the last three years. While its origins are unclear, families started taking rubber ducks aboard cruise ships and hiding them for other kids and families to find.
These ducks usually have little labels attached, listing the cruise ship, the date, and the person who hid them. It’s another “pay it forward” activity where people hide rubber ducks and create a treasure hunt for others to enjoy.
This trend is largely organized through social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The cruising duck fans have a group called Cruising Ducks, where they share updates and results from their treasure hunts.
The idea is simple: if you find ducks on a cruise ship, you’re encouraged to purchase or source more ducks to hide, ensuring a constant rotation of ducks on board.
These two phenomena—Jeep ducking and cruising ducks—have created unique communities of fun and interaction.
There’s also another interesting occurence involving rubber ducks, known as the rubber duck debugging method. This old-school practice was popular among programmers from the 1980s to the early 2000s. It’s less common with today’s generation, but it remains notable. Programmers would keep a rubber duck on their desks, and when faced with a coding problem, they would explain the issue to the duck. The act of verbalizing the problem often led them to the solution. It’s a psychological technique rooted in simplifying and clarifying the problem. There’s even a Wikipedia page about it. While it’s not as widely practiced today, it’s a fascinating example of how rubber ducks have been part of people’s lives in unexpected ways.
Section 5: Duck World’s Debut – From Pop-Up Experiment to Retail Phenomenon
Experiential retail differs greatly from traditional retail. In a standard retail store—like a souvenir shop or grocery store—you usually encounter reserved customer service. The products are displayed on shelves, and the experience is transactional: pick what you want and check out. Experiential retail, however, blends shopping with entertainment, creating a memorable experience for customers. This approach is particularly effective in differentiating physical stores from online sales, which are often purely transactional.
To incentivize customers to visit stores, we offer more than just proDuckts. For example, each of our stores has a unique design and experience. In Miami, we collaborate with local artists to exhibit works made of rubber ducks in a gallery-style setup. This makes the store part art gallery, part retail space. We also have photo zones where customers can take Instagram-worthy pictures. One feature is a bath filled with balls and rubber ducks, where people can sit, hug oversized ducks, and snap photos.
Additionally, we host interactive activities in our stores. In one, we place a container filled with small ducks and ask visitors to guess how many are inside. We announce the winner on Instagram each month, and they receive a prize. Our London store has a spinning wheel reminiscent of theme parks, where visitors can win prizes. Other stores feature small games, like a “hook-a-duck” game for children, where they can fish out ducks and win rewards.
These interactive elements make shopping fun and create lasting memories, ensuring that our stores stand out from traditional retail experiences.
The idea is to create a small but meaningful experience for five to ten minutes when people walk into the store. We work very hard on customer service to ensure that everyone who enters feels welcomed, much like the experience you’d expect at a place like Disney World or a theme park.
When customers arrive, our staff—or even Irene and me, if we’re working—greet them warmly with humor and puns about ducks. For example, we’’ll say, “Welcome to Duck World! The nest of rubber ducks!” in a very dramatic way, and make the visit fun, silly and memorable . This creates a unique atmosphere and adds a personal touch to the experience.
I always tell our staff that our metrics are not only about the number of ducks sold. Officially, our staff are called “duck dealers,” not sales associates, because their job is to deal ducks and evoke smiles. We aim to get a smile from everyone who walks through our doors.
Whether through a joke, an interactive activity, or simply a welcoming attitude, we aim to make every visitor happy – even if they don’t buy anything. For example, we have stores in major train stations in London, and clients tell us, “You lighten up my commute every day. After work, I stop by, smile, laugh, and it makes my day better.” That’s exactly the essence of experiential retail.
Jacobsen: How do you develop an economic model for the business while competing with larger e-commerce distributors and retailers? That is a tricky challenge. You’re offering something more immersive through experiential sales. In contrast, others focus on convenience, such as Amazon Prime delivering products to customers’ doors.
Perkon: Competing with online retailers is a challenge, but our advantage lies in our product category. Toys, novelties, and collectibles. Our designer ducks—are not commodified.
For example, if you’re buying a phone, you know exactly which one you want. You’ll go online, find it cheaply, and have it delivered. The same applies to items like soft drinks; they’re commodities. Standard.
Rubber ducks, however, aren’t necessities. Nobody goes out specifically looking for a rubber duck—except perhaps collectors, who make up about 5% of our customers and often shop through our website. For 95% of our customers, the purchase is an impulse decision.
Most of our customers are tourists visiting the city, locals searching for a unique gift, or people simply walking by and discovering us. It’s not about finding the cheapest option; it’s about experiencing something fun and unique, having an experience.
I’d compare it to the difference between playing a video game and visiting a theme park. You’ll enjoy playing your game at home if you’re a gamer. But if you’re visiting Orlando, you’re not going to sit in your hotel and play a game—you’ll visit a theme park like Disney World. Similarly, when people visit London, visitors look for unique shopping experiences, and Duck World fits that category.
Section 7: Competing with E-Commerce – The Experience Edge
Jacobsen: How do you see the future of experiential marketing? Could you combine this in-person, welcoming environment with new technologies like VR or AR to create an even more immersive experience?
Perkon: That’s an interesting thought. Blending physical experiences with virtual and augmented reality could open new possibilities for experiential retail. It would allow us to enhance customer interaction in ways we haven’t yet explored, creating a hybrid physical and digital immersion model. It’s something worth considering as we evolve.
We are always innovating to create better experiences with every store we open. To achieve that, we often need more and more space to implement our ideas.
I’m not a big fan of VR. This is just my opinion—my co-founder might feel differently—but I don’t embrace the concept of sitting at home trying to experience something virtually. We’re always on our phones and computers, playing online games, anyway. As a brand, Duck World is about real experiences and physical goods.
Section 8: Future Horizons – Integrating New Technologies and Innovations
We don’t sell digital products because we believe in tangible and tactile interactions. While the world is moving toward more online and virtual experiences, we aim to bring people back into real life. Our products—little sculptures and real collectibles—are designed to give people a sense of connection to something physical.
For this reason, I don’t see us ever creating a VR experience where people could visit our stores virtually from far away. It’s like visiting a theme park online. Sure, you could watch a ride on your TV, but it will never be the same as being there. Nothing beats the real thing.
However, augmented reality (AR) could be interesting. It can enhance physical spaces with virtual sculptures or artworks, or create animated characters. Customers could use their phones to explore a physical space uniquely.
So, moving forward, we’re focused on building experiences in a physical format—photo zones, interactive games, customized ducks designed by artists in-store, and more. These elements create a memorable, hands-on experience for our customers.
Section 9: Concluding Thoughts – Reflecting on a Quacktastic Journey
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I truly appreciate it.
Perkon: Thank you.
Jacobsen: It’s fascinating to learn about Duck World. I never considered niche markets like this or how they could adapt to an experiential retail model. I was focused on the general trend of retail declining while online shopping increases. But this offers such a unique and innovative angle.
Perkon: The future of retail needs to focus on experiences. Without that, people will prefer to buy online. Retailers must give customers a reason to visit their stores.
Jacobsen: Excellent. I appreciate your time today.
Perkon: Have a quacktastic rest of the day!
Jacobsen: I like that. Thank you!
Discussion
This interview with Filip Perkon illustrates a remarkable journey of reinvention. Amid the challenges brought by the global pandemic, Perkon pivoted from a stable career in finance and event consultancy to launch Duck World, an experiential retail brand centered on collectible rubber ducks. This move not only demonstrates the power of adaptability but also highlights how a unique idea—sparked by a personal passion and a serendipitous moment in Madrid—can redefine an industry.
Duck World differentiates itself by creating immersive, in-store experiences that extend far beyond a conventional shopping trip. The brand has ingeniously blended art, play, and community, with interactive installations, themed photo zones, and grassroots movements like Jeep Ducking and cruising ducks. These elements have not only attracted collectors and tourists but have also established a vibrant community that finds joy in a tactile, real-world engagement—a stark contrast to the impersonal nature of online retail.
Looking ahead, Perkon’s vision suggests that the future of retail lies in the intersection of physical and digital experiences, even as he remains committed to tangible customer interactions. While emerging technologies such as augmented reality hold potential to further enhance the retail experience, Duck World’s success is grounded in its ability to evoke genuine human connection and delight. This approach serves as a compelling case study for how niche markets can thrive by turning challenges into opportunities for innovation and community building.
Methods
The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/filip-perkon
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 15). Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/filip-perkon.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/filip-perkon.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/filip-perkon.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Filip Perkon on Niche Experiential Retail.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/filip-perkon.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Skeptic Society Magazine
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/30
Wonderful Mkhutche is Humanists Malawi’s Executive Director. He spoke with Canadian humanist and writer Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Wonderful Mkhutche. We’re going to discuss humanism in Malawi, and we’ll also touch on witchcraft allegations. For an American humanist audience, Malawi may not come up as frequently as Canada might. To start, what is the relevance of humanism in a Malawian context?
Wonderful Mkhutche: Humanism is especially significant here among the small community of humanists. Humanism in Malawi is about challenging societal mindsets largely shaped by dominant Christian and Muslim beliefs.
Together, Christianity and Islam constitute about 90% of the population, alongside other beliefs such as traditional African religions and, to a lesser extent, Hinduism. Generally, Malawian society is deeply religious. As a humanist and someone who has been religious for most of my life, I have observed how religion has hindered social progress. My journey to humanism was fueled by a frustration with the limitations imposed by religious beliefs—the kind of restrictions that curb free thought. Any attempt to think outside these norms is often seen as rebellious and needing correction. Humanism, for me, was a way to break free from these boundaries.
Over the past ten years, I have been involved in humanism and have experienced growth in my social and moral awareness. This growth has extended beyond me; it has positively affected those around me, including family and friends, who have begun to question certain views on religion because of the changes they’ve seen in me. Humanism offers a path towards a more open-minded and progressive society in the larger Malawian context.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding witchcraft allegations, how common are they? And how does humanism, with its emphasis on science, empiricism, and skepticism, provide a basis to counter these beliefs, which are often rooted in superstition?
Mkhutche: Three-quarters of the population believes in witchcraft, and this belief impacts daily life in Malawi. Although witchcraft beliefs don’t always result in daily violence, people often blame illnesses, deaths, or misfortunes like job loss on witchcraft. These beliefs are primarily grounded in two foundations. First, there is a religious basis: as I mentioned, most Malawians are Christians or Muslims, and both the Bible and the Quran reference witchcraft. Rejecting witchcraft outright can feel like contradicting one’s faith. Secondly, there is a cultural foundation rooted in African spirituality and cosmology, where belief in witchcraft is widely accepted.
Humanism addresses these beliefs by challenging both religious and traditional foundations. In Malawi, humanism is unique in its approach to combating witchcraft beliefs because it promotes rational thinking and empirical evidence—offering a perspective that few others in society address.
Mkhutche: Other people may acknowledge that witchcraft exists, but they don’t believe we should be fighting or killing each other because of it. However, as humanists, we aim to eliminate the belief in witchcraft. We say witchcraft doesn’t exist, in the hope that, as people stop believing in it, the “virus” of superstition will also disappear from our society. That’s the unique approach humanism offers in addressing witchcraft. It’s the best way forward because we can’t allow people to believe in witchcraft and then expect them not to engage in violence because of that belief.
The best solution is to remove the belief, eliminating the associated harm.
Jacobsen: And what about individuals who were once Christian or Muslim, who believed in witches and witchcraft, and then came to be humanists like yourself? How do they describe their transformation away from superstition?
Mkhutche: Most people who shift away from that belief are Christians. We rarely see Muslims doing so, as Islam is a minority religion here. At times, Islam even has a soft spot for us humanists because there’s a form of Christian nationalism in Malawi, where Christians try to dominate society. Since Muslims can’t openly challenge this, humanism provides a voice against religious dominance. So when we speak against Christian nationalist tendencies, Muslims sometimes view us favorably.
However, the Christians who change their minds are few, as religious indoctrination is deep-rooted. Those who do shift often say, “I realize now that witchcraft wasn’t real; it was just a narrative implanted in me to explain social issues for which I didn’t have answers.” After that, they may join us in social media debates whenever we challenge beliefs in witchcraft. This transformation is something we see often. People who passionately argued with me five years ago now admit that we, as humanists, were right all along. They come out openly, acknowledging that they’ve changed their minds, though it takes time.
Jacobsen: What about public figures? Are there any celebrities, politicians, or public intellectuals in Malawi who promote humanism or humanistic values?
Mkhutche: No, that would be a dangerous stance to take. In Malawian society, openly denying witchcraft’s existence is risky. For example, if a musician or celebrity were to say witchcraft isn’t real, some people might stop supporting their work. I know some directors who agree with me that witchcraft doesn’t exist, but they lack the courage to speak publicly about it. Even for me, it hasn’t been easy. There’s a risk of losing economic opportunities simply for holding views that go against societal norms. This has been the case up until two or three years ago.
Right now, I see society beginning to open up. It’s creating space for some of us who are open to saying that witchcraft doesn’t exist. For example, the media often calls us whenever an event occurs, looking for our perspective. When I attend certain social events, and people recognize my name, that’s the first thing they mention.
They’ll say, “Yes, you’re the one who says witchcraft doesn’t exist. Tell me more.” So, the social space is gradually opening up, allowing me to voice my views. People may disagree with us, but they are willing to listen, even though these beliefs have been ingrained since birth. It would be even better if famous people were to speak openly about this issue.
This is why I’m motivated to climb as far as I can on the social ladder, to use whatever influence I may have to tell people that witchcraft isn’t real. I’ve seen how impactful that influence can be. Wherever I go, I represent that message. When people see me, they associate me with the message that witchcraft doesn’t exist. It works.
Jacobsen: What efforts are you making for humanism in Malawi and through organizations like Advocacy for Alleged Witches? How do you engage communities, villages, cities, and organizations with humanist principles to combat witchcraft allegations in Malawi?
Mkhutche: We have several approaches. The first is responding whenever there is a witchcraft-related case. In recent months, we haven’t had any cases of violence specifically due to witchcraft beliefs, though the narrative persists daily. However, whenever such a situation does arise, we see how we can respond—whether by reaching out to the traditional leaders in the area, speaking with the victims, or alerting the police, as we may not always be able to intervene directly. Even within our humanist community, not everyone wants to be on the front lines. Some prefer to keep their association with humanism discreet, even if they are critical of witchcraft or believe in God. So, although they are humanists, we can’t always rely on them for certain tasks.
For instance, when a media opportunity arises to discuss these issues, I may post in our group asking who is available, but only some respond, simply because they are afraid.
The second approach is media interviews. They are incredibly effective in spreading the message.
I recall a program on national radio where they invited me to share my views on witchcraft and the existence of God in a thirty-minute segment. They continue to rebroadcast that program, and I often receive feedback—people calling to hear more about certain topics. Some people already doubted the existence of witchcraft, so when they hear me say it doesn’t exist, they feel relieved, like they’ve finally found someone who thinks the same way. They reach out to connect with me.
At the University of Malawi, we also hold debates for students about various aspects of witchcraft and its impact on Malawian society. Events like these don’t start and end on campus; we invite journalists to cover them, and sometimes, we record these debates so they’re available online. We aim to use every possible opportunity to spread our message.
Jacobsen: One last question—something particularly relevant to humanists in the Global South compared to those in the Global North. In regions where safety, security, and privacy might be greater concerns, with law enforcement perhaps less accessible or social repercussions more severe, what risks should anyone in Malawi consider before coming out as a humanist? How might this offer a humbling perspective for others whose societies may not have these specific challenges, even though they face their issues?
Mkhutche: The risks of coming out as a humanist in Malawi are considerable. The first major risk is the loss of economic opportunities. It can be challenging to secure a contract or even employment if people know you don’t believe in witchcraft or, even more so, in God.
There’s also the risk of social isolation. I’ve seen cases where individuals’ families stop supporting them financially, whether for school fees or business opportunities because they’ve heard that person denies the existence of witchcraft or God. It’s a form of punishment for thinking differently. We have several cases like this.
Even in my experience, leaving religion didn’t immediately impact my economic situation, but I noticed some family members and friends began to distance themselves. I lost several friends, although I’ve reconnected with some over time. Others still won’t talk to me and say they’ll only reconnect the day I return to religion.
They were good friends then, but we’re no longer on good terms now. Those are some of the risks we face here.
When you compare this to the Global North, the situation is different because you live in societies where many people may align with your views. Here, however, in a country of 20 million people, imagine 19.5 million believing one thing and just a few of us holding a different perspective. It’s a significant challenge.
These issues keep arising, and you also asked about women and humanism. We don’t see many women coming forward—not because they aren’t there—they are. They speak about humanism privately, but publicly, they’re afraid. If a woman openly says she’s a humanist, very few men outside of other humanists would be willing to date or marry her. Many people here expect women to be religious, so women fear social isolation if they openly embrace humanism.
This interview will be for a flagship publication for American humanists, which will provide good exposure regarding our work on witchcraft allegations and advocacy in Malawi.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 22, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: February 1, 2025
Abstract
This interview presents a series of vivid, first-hand accounts by Paul Cooijmans, a longtime test creator and administrator in high-I.Q. circles, as recounted in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Cooijmans details a variety of bizarre, humorous, and at times tragic anecdotes spanning several decades. Topics include inexplicable complaints about test language and delivery, elaborate instances of test fraud—including the case of a beheaded man and pseudonymous retesting—the misadventures of high-I.Q. society members (from a casino robber to a documentary subject whose life ended in tragedy), and curious occurrences involving death threats, spurious professorate offers, and wildly unorthodox interpretations of test instructions. These stories highlight not only the challenges of maintaining test integrity and clear communication in a multicultural, digital environment but also the human eccentricities that arise when intelligence testing intersects with personality, ambition, and occasional mischief. The interview ultimately underscores the unpredictable and often surreal landscape of high-I.Q. society interactions.
Keywords: Cognitive Abilities, Cognitive Assessment, Cognitive Profiles, Diagnostic Context, Digital IQ Testing, Educational Diagnostics, Educational Interventions, Fluid Reasoning, Fraud in Testing, High-IQ Societies, Intelligence Anomalies, Intelligence Fraud, IQ Communication, IQ Controversies, IQ Discrepancies, IQ Distribution, IQ Fetishization, IQ Measurement, IQ Test Administration, IQ Test Security, IQ Tests, Multiple Intelligences, Online IQ Testing, Percentiles, Psychometric Evaluation, Psychometrics, Sensorimotor Abilities, Standard Deviation, Test Timing, Unconventional IQ Cases, Working Memory
Introduction
The realm of high-I.Q. testing and society membership has long been fertile ground for both intellectual rigor and eccentric behavior. In this in-depth interview, Paul Cooijmans—a veteran test designer and administrator—shares an array of unusual experiences accumulated over years of administering tests, handling orders, and interacting with a diverse community of high-I.Q. individuals. From a customer who inexplicably complained about receiving an English test in lieu of a supposed “Netherlandic” version, to intricate fraud cases involving false identities and even a tragic tale of a beheaded test-taker, Cooijmans leaves no stone unturned.
The conversation also delves into episodes that range from the comically absurd—such as pseudonymous submissions by a so-called “South-African” who was later revealed to be a retest under a child’s name—to the more serious implications of test misconduct, including death threats, elaborate attempts to manipulate test results, and the challenges of verifying scores in an era of instant communication. Anecdotes about high-I.Q. society members, including a rogue member involved in a casino heist, a spamming correspondent inundating Cooijmans with daily messages, and an overly ambitious “professorate” offer from a New Zealand student, further illuminate the unpredictable nature of this specialized community.
By presenting these narratives, the interview not only provides insight into the practical difficulties of administering and safeguarding intelligence tests but also paints a broader picture of the cultural and interpersonal dynamics that animate the world of high-I.Q. societies. This introduction sets the stage for a detailed exploration of both the humorous and cautionary dimensions of test administration, while inviting readers to reflect on the interplay between standardized measurement and the uniquely human quirks that often defy neat categorization.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Paul Cooijmans
Section 1: Test Orders, Language, and Delivery Complaints
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with the people who complained about the tests being in Netherlandic, or not arriving on time?
Paul Cooijmans: On one occasion, someone ordered an English test, and upon receiving it complained that he did not know Netherlandic. This was bizarre as there was no Netherlandic whatsoever in the test. Some time later, he explicitly ordered a Netherlandic test. Again, upon receipt he complained that I had sent a Netherlandic test! Good-natured as I am, I sent him the English version for free, so that he now had two tests for the price of one.
Again later, this person ordered another test, and I sent it less than two hours after he had ordered it. To my astonishment, I then saw a public Facebook message from him in a group to which we both belonged; in it he was moaning that he had ordered one of my tests and I had not sent anything and was letting him wait for days and days. I studied the time stamps of the Facebook message and test order, and there were only minutes separating them. He must have written the whining Facebook message at the same time he ordered the test! But of course, minutes may seem days, depending on what one smokes.
Section 2: The Beheaded Man and the Fraudulent Retest
Jacobsen: What is the full story of the beheaded man, who took a test under a false name and would have won under his real name, regardless?
Cooijmans: In the early days of the Test For Genius, 1995, a Netherlander obtained a rather high score. Inexperienced as I was, I showed him the answers to the hardest problems, with explanations. To encourage people to take the test, I awarded 2000 guilders to the highest scorer before the year 2000. For some years, only few submissions came in, mostly not high. Then in 1999, a very high score was finally achieved by a South-African who appeared to be a colleague of the high-scoring Netherlander, working there as an intern. This was around the time of the total eclipse of the sun, visible in England and France for instance. The high-scoring Netherlander had told me he was planning to travel to the area where the full eclipse was visible, and that he expected this to become a life-changing event. Come to think of it, I never heard from him again after the eclipse.
So the 1999-2000 year change arrived, and the South-African was the winner. I contacted him and suggested he come collect the prize, but he declined and asked me to transfer it to his bank account, which I promptly did. He wrote me that he was returning to South Africa and, as a parting gift, sent me some answers to a test by another Netherlander who had also awarded a monetary prize to the highest scorer, albeit a much smaller prize than mine (300 guilders, if I remember well). He suggested I use them to win the prize, which I of course did not.
Some time went by, until finally in 2001 the high-scoring Netherlander had an article published in the Netherlandic journal of a large I.Q. society. It was about the spirograph, a toy with which one can draw figures of intertwined circles with wheels that rotate inside each other. He likened this to the guilloche engine, and spoke of guilloche engines he had seen in a museum. For some length he went on about rotating wheels and guilloche engines. While reading his interesting piece, the telephone rang, and a member of this society informed me that the author of the article had been found near a railway tunnel, his head cleanly separated from his trunk by the wheels of a train. It was one of the finest examples I had ever seen of what one could call a macabre sense of humour.
Since this was a mysterious event, I wrote the South-African about the tragic death, asking whether he had any idea why the Netherlander could have done such a thing. To my surprise, the next day I received a telephone call from the high-scoring Netherlander’s sister, who confessed that the South-African colleague did not exist, and his name was that of her little son. The letter had arrived at her address. She told me that her brother had used her son’s name to retest on my and other tests. Indeed, the “South-African” had informed me of his scores on Ronald K. Hoeflin’s tests, which had been taken before by the Netherlander under his own name, then under his sister’s name (he told me that at the time) and finally under the child’s name as it now turned out.
I understood why the “South-African” score on the Test For Genius had been so high; after all, I had given the answers to the hardest questions (the “Short” version of the test) to the Netherlander some years before. In fact I had had a very mild suspicion right away when receiving that test submission, which was written on the same paper as used by the Netherlander, in a vaguely similar style and handwriting. Out of piety I decided to let the Netherlander be the official winner of the Prize rather than the non-existent South-African; after all, he had the highest score after removing the fraudulent South-African one. He would have won without the pseudonymous retest, albeit that he had not registered for the Prize under his own name, which was a requirement. Around that time I also learnt of certain family circumstances that may have led to the suicide, but I believe it is not appropriate to relate those here. I did use this case when writing my novel “Field of eternal integrity”, as well as in the “Test of the Beheaded Man”. One could say that in selling those items, I am repaying myself the 2000 guilders he conned me for.
Section 3: The Casino Robber and “High Queue” Verbal Tests
Jacobsen: What happened with the high-I.Q. society member who ended up robbing a casino?
Cooijmans: This was a young man whom I had seen several times at meetings. Suddenly, an article by him appeared in the journal of a society to which we belonged, explaining he had tried to solve his financial problems by robbing a casino with a (not loaded) hand gun. Shortly after exiting the casino, he was caught by the police, I think it was actually a routine control. I corresponded with him while he was in prison and sent him a test to take by way of extra punishment, which he completed. Even from prison, he kept organizing a large yearly summer feast, which he had been doing for years already. I believe his sentence was something like a year and a half. After his release he came to live in a town close to me, and died some years later of an illness.
Jacobsen: Who is “High Queue”? What were those verbal tests they sent?
Cooijmans: A decade or so ago, the pseudonym High Queue was used by someone who spread a number of verbal analogies tests among I.Q. society members. The analogies dealt with more or less known figures in the societies in a fun-poking way, and some people were offended. It has never been officially revealed who High Queue was, but I am as good as certain it was two people. Originally only one, then another joined in and took over who was even more vitriolic. I know the names, but think it is better not to reveal them here. In private correspondence I have no objection to sharing them.
Section 4: The Documentary Subject and the Finnish Test Fraud Call
Jacobsen: What happened with the member who had a prize-winning documentary made about him and then later committed suicide?
Cooijmans: In the year 2000 I was in contact with this person, mainly about Asperger syndrome and related topics. This was both correspondence and telephone. He told me a lot about his suffering from extreme compulsions, depression, experience with being bullied, adaptations he was making to his apartment, self-administered forms of shock therapy he used to be temporarily rid of his otherwise untreatable state of compulsiveness and depression, and more. This was an extremely verbally inclined person who spoke fluently and rapidly, using a rich and high-brow vocabulary. He suffered extremely and assured me that his phenotype should under no circumstance be repeated.
Twelve years later a documentary about him, “De regels van Matthijs”, was in the news for winning a prize in a film festival in Nyon, Switzerland. It showed the bizarre adaptations he had been making in his apartment, like a hole in the wall to be able to use the space between walls for storage, a vessel to retain the water of the shower while it was warm to keep the energy in, changes to the gas tubes, and so on. You saw him soldering or welding on those tubes, and showing medications he had hoarded for his self-administered treatments. The house owner was threatening to put him out of his apartment because of all the modifications. At the end of the documentary he died. It is not clear to me exactly what the cause was, whether it was suicide or a shock therapy gone wrong. The things he did were potentially deadly so I am not giving details, but the documentary does.
Jacobsen: What happened with the Fin who called you and asked to halt the “bloodhounds” going after him for test fraud?
Cooijmans: Some twenty-five years ago the telephone rang – in those days a lot was done via telephone calls – and a Glia Society member from Finland was on the line. He confessed he had cheated when taking a few tests, both a Hoeflin test and the Cattell Culture Fair, both of which had seen a lot of fraud already in the 1990s. Some people had found this out and were harassing him about it, and he believed I was behind that and desperately begged me to make them stop. “Call back the bloodhounds” were words he used. Sadly, I knew nothing of what was going on and had no means to end the merciless, cruel persecution of this poor soul. His haunted, breaking voice still disturbs my dreams after heavy meals. He was never heard of again thereafter.
Section 5: Conspiracy Theories, a Low-Scoring Cheater, and the Time Lords
Jacobsen: What did the person lecture about regarding conspiracy theories, UFOs, and the JFK assassination at the high-I.Q. society meeting?
Cooijmans: In the mid-1990s, a large I.Q. society organized a lecture by “John Hercules”, whose real name was John Kühles; I see he has still been active in recent years. The lecture was about topics like crop circles, UFOs, and various conspiracy theories. The most remarkable thing I remember was a video of a film of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, on which you could make out that the driver of the car put his left hand over his right shoulder, holding something that looked like a gun. A shot was apparently fired, and Kennedy’s head went back. John Hercules explained that secret agents are taught to shoot with one hand over the shoulder thus. This was the only time I have ever seen that video; I never even heard about it again after the lecture. It looked authentic to me though. If it was a forgery, I do not know how it could have been made.
Section 6: Cheating Confessions and Persistent Commercial Spam
Jacobsen: How did the low-scoring test cheater pose as a test designer?
Cooijmans: In 2006, this person scored zero on a test and disputed the result, claiming I had not reported the true raw score. Shortly thereafter another person took the same test and also scored zero. Right after I had reported the score to the second person, the first person responded angrily, saying, “You did not score that test honestly, I changed six answers so my score can not be zero again”. Clearly he had let a friend of his send the retest.
Later in a Facebook group for test creators, I observed him spreading a test of his own hand. Or rather, someone else spread it for him as he was not on Facebook himself, it seemed.
Jacobsen: What was the phone call about the Time Lords in the future Giga Society? Who were these “White Masters” mentioned?
Cooijmans: In the 1990s I wrote a series of fictional stories in Netherlandic about the Time Lords, who were Giga Society members communicating with me from the future. After publication of one episode in a Netherlandic I.Q. society journal, a lady called me to ask if the Time Lords were the same as the White Masters she was in regular contact with. I think she referred to the White Masters of Anthroposophy. I kindly answered that I did not know if it concerned the same entities, and that I would ask them on the earliest convenient occasion. Somehow I have not got to that yet.
Jacobsen: What’s the story behind the person who confessed to cheating and then begged remaining hidden?
Cooijmans: In the mid-1990s a Netherlandic I.Q. society member told me he had cheated by using dictionaries when taking the W-87, the admission test of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry at the time. Since this test was vocabulary-based, in English, and disallowed dictionaries despite being unsupervised, this resulted in a score much higher than his real intelligence level. He also said that he would one day raise this matter in the I.S.P.E. and confess the fraud. It is unknown whether he ever did that.
Later in one of my satirical articles in the Netherlandic journal of this society (not the I.S.P.E. but the other one), I announced that the time of unmasking was nigh for test frauds. On the day of publication, he called me, almost panicking, begging me not to betray him, and claiming that what he had done was not fraud, even offering to help me take that test and get me into the I.S.P.E. that way. That is so revealing of the ethical level of such a person, that it can even occur to him that I would participate in such fraud.
Jacobsen: Who was spamming you persistently with commercial messages? How did you handle it?
Cooijmans: It is better not to name names, although in this case my hands are itching; this person sent me a friend request on Facebook and, after I accepted, at once commenced sending me commercial messages asking me to invest money in his projects. Every time I unsubscribed, he added me again. After a few such rounds I unfriended him. Some time later I saw him writing under a Facebook post about me that HE had unfriended ME because I had “annoyed” him… Such behaviour I find beneath contempt.
Section 7: A Cry for Help and a Request for Controlled Contact
Jacobsen: What is the story of the individual who sent a strange “help” message and then assaulted a pregnant woman?
Cooijmans: In the early 2020s I received an empty electronic mail message with an attachment that was a photo of a piece of paper with, barely legible, “help” scribbled on it. I ignored it for the time being. A few years or so later, I came across the message again in my absurdly large e-mail archive, and decided to look this person up on the Internet to see if nothing bad had happened. Just to reassure myself, so to speak. After all, one never knows. And so I learnt to my amazement that the person – referred to as a “woman” in some sources but looking like a male – had been arrested for assaulting a breastfeeding woman in her car (I mistakenly said “pregnant” before), seemingly trying to steal the baby. Video footage of the arrest can be found online.
So I suppose the lesson is, never ignore a cry for help! My bad, as one says idiomatically.
Jacobsen: What was with the request from the person who wanted you to test everyone seeking her contact information?
Cooijmans: This person felt overwhelmed with people wanting to contact her, and decided to go offline and in hiding for an undetermined period. On her request, we arranged this so that her web location would refer people to me, and I would administer a certain test to them, and only if they exceeded a particular very high score would I bring them in touch with her. She warned me that it would get busy with contenders.
No one ever showed up.
Section 8: Unconfirmed Test Scores and Shifting Identities
Jacobsen: What’s the background on two unconfirmed Logima Strictica 36 scores of 32?
Cooijmans: One day, someone showed me his Logima Strictica 36 score report, and it reported 32 right. The report was fully authentic, as far as I could tell. Still, he told me that the test scorer and author, Robert Lato, had denied the score afterwards and sent him a new report with a much lower score, stating that the first report had been a “joke”. The published statistics also never contained the score of 32. As an interjection, I remind the readers here that the “official” statistics and norms of L.S. 36 as found online are, in my perception, a clandestine rogue project by an individual who was not satisfied with his I.Q. on the test according to the official norms at the time, and made his own norms, giving himself a very much higher I.Q., and then aggressively pushing his norms as if they were the official ones.
Years later, a second candidate told me that he, too, had received a Logima Strictica 36 report with a raw score of 32. This score is missing from the published statistics as well.
Jacobsen: Why did somebody contact you under different names over the years?
Cooijmans: In the early 2000s when I had just acquired a computer and Internet connection, someone corresponded with me briefly and mentioned various personal circumstances, such as being sixteen years old, pregnant, and considering travelling to another country. Over the fifteen years or so that followed, this person resumed contact with me a few times after years-long interruptions, but under different names. I knew it was the same person because she referred to the circumstances mentioned during the initial period of correspondence, showed photos of the child growing up and so on, but for some reason she never wanted to confirm the name she used then, and which I remember well.
Section 9: Outlandish Academic Offers, Delusions, and Speed Dating
Jacobsen: What happened with the supposed “professorate” offer at a New Zealand university? The offer from someone who turned out to be a student.
Cooijmans: This person told me that his university would like to have me as a professor or something like that; I only needed to say “yes” and I was in. This struck me as rather strange, if only because I lived literally on the other side of the world so how could I ever get to my workplace in time each morning if I took on that job? It would take hours to get there! I did not get clear responses to my questions as to precisely how he had in mind I could work in New Zealand, and then seamlessly his text morphed into suggesting that I come study for a PhD there.
I pointed out I did not even have a Master’s degree, so was not eligible for such a course, but he assured me that prior degrees were entirely unneeded: “You just read the books, take the exams, and you have a doctorate!” I was quite certain that doctorates are not conferred thus, but rather through doing research and writing a dissertation or series of articles; but then, this was not the first time that someone from Oceania presented me with this alternative PhD journey. Meanwhile it had become clear that this was just a student with a lot of imagination. In the dialect of the region where I live, such a person might be called a “lulleman”. A bit later, after the advent of YouTube, he began sending me messages containing only hyper references to videos with the remark, “This video is awesome!” I did not know the word “awesome” at the time, and, seeing the videos he sent me, assumed it meant the same as “awful”.
Again later when Facebook came up, I saw him writing unintelligent non-committal high-on-the-horse comments under messages of I.Q. society members; never have I seen him put out even one sentence that made sense.
Jacobsen: What was the deal with the person who experienced bizarre delusions of reference?
Cooijmans: This was in the early 2000s. By that time I had an Internet connection and electronic mail account, and this person, an I.Q. society member and author of a Netherlandic book on giftedness, corresponded with me for a while after I had provided information she needed for the book. She told me she always studied certain one-lined cartoons in a particular newspaper with great attention, as they tended to be about her. The cartoonist had hacked her computer, she said, and was using her personal life history as a basis for his daily strip “Sigmund”.
But it got worse; she also claimed that the television series “Fantasy Island” – Ze plane! Ze plane! – was based on short stories written by her and stolen from her hacked computer. The catch is that this series was made in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so twenty years earlier, when she most likely was not writing on a computer yet. When I carefully pointed this out to her, she insisted, “But I am certain! I can see with my own eyes that every episode follows my story line to the smallest detail!” Just in case she reads this interview: No, this is not about you.
Jacobsen: How was the “speed dating” event of the high-I.Q. society?
Cooijmans: It was held in the open air in 2010, somewhere in the middle of the Netherlands. The females were seated in a very wide circle, dozens of metres removed from one another. The males went round, spending five minutes or so with each female. You got a form on which to indicate if you were interested in each given candidate, and afterwards the organizers compared these forms to determine the “matches”. Every participant received a list of one’s matches to take home. I think I had about four.
In the days thereafter I was briefly in electronic mail contact with each of the “matches”. While nothing came out of it, one case was particularly dismissive; when I reminded her of topics we had discussed at the “speed date”, she downright denied them and said I must be mistaking her for someone else. I considered that thoroughly, mentally went through all the conversations I had had that day, but no, I was not mistaken. I suppose this is some people’s way of saying, “I do not want further contact”.
Section 10: COLT Misfires, Web Host Mayhem, Death Threats, and Final Oddities
Jacobsen: What is the case of the COLT misfiring? What were the consequences?
Cooijmans: In 2009 someone ordered the “Cooijmans On-Line Test – Two-barrelled version” and I sent him the login information. He protested that this was not the two-barrelled version, but the earlier one, for which he claimed to have already paid twice, the second time after losing his password.
I looked through my meticulously kept financial books and test database, and saw he had never ordered the earlier COLT version (but had ordered other tests), and had never had login information before. I explained to him that the COLT was originally freely available online for everyone, without logging in, and that the login system was introduced later on. And that he might have been on the COLT before the login system came, and later noticed he could not log in and wrongly thought he had lost his password. And that I would not let someone pay a second time after losing the password. And that this was definitely the two-barrelled version, and that the second barrel would appear as he advanced.
But he stubbornly maintained this was not the two-barrelled version, and that he had a login account earlier and had paid twice before for the same test. “You are an idiot and I resent you”, he uttered after my kind explanation above. I deleted his account and refunded the fee. It is especially bizarre that someone can deny that a test is a certain test while I, as the creator, am the one who knows what test it is.
Jacobsen: What happened when your web host took down your site?
Cooijmans: This was someone who had been in contact with me about “Space, Time, and Hyperspace”, a subtest of the Test For Genius. He claimed the test was invalid, and wanted some kind of credit for having proven that. I invited him to send answers, but he refused, apparently he first wanted some guarantee that he would receive a perfect score for showing that the items were invalid (which he had not shown or explained at all at that point, he only stated that they were invalid but without arguments or explanations). There was a stubbornness and rigidity in his behaviour that is often associated with psychotic disorders, and later he indeed told me he was schizophrenic.
Since I was not willing to give him any credit or guarantee for simply stating the test was invalid, he went berserk and put the test with his alleged proof of invalidity online. But very soon thereafter he removed it again, regretting it. He also made a number of web sites with domain names that referred to me or my tests, and that attempted to install malicious software on the visitor’s electronic computer upon loading the page.
A bit later he offered to host my web site for free. Forgiving as I am, I let him do that. For a while it worked, then suddenly my web site was gone and I never heard from him again.
Jacobsen: What led to the death threat? How did you respond?
Cooijmans: To start at the likely beginning, in 2001 someone from Germany ordered the German version of the Test For Genius, which I sent him. A few months later he began to complain that what I had sent was not the German Test For Genius. Again, that was bizarre, given that I, as the creator of the test, am the one who knows which test it is. Perhaps he had expected it to be more similar to the English version, but of course one can not translate test problems literally, one has to find some adaptation that works in the other language. He maintained stubbornly and rigidly that this was not the German Test For Genius, and eventually I offered to refund the two dollars he had paid me (that was the test fee in those days). Suddenly he withdrew and refused to give his address, making it impossible for me to send the money back. I heard nothing from him for a long time.
Then in 2003, 51 minutes before my birthday, I received this friendly message from Germany by electronic mail. Although I have never been able to verify it with certainty, I suspect it came from the person in the previous paragraph:
Hello Paul,
How are you doing, old friend?
Well, I hope! For the moment.
I’ll be coming to Helmond next month.
And I’ll get rid of you.
I will take my time.
I know where you live.
I know where you go.
Do you remember me?
We met 2 years ago.
You stupid little prick.
Prepare to suffer.
Prepare to die.
See you soon,
mmmfred 196
A last test for you:
One of these people will die soon. Select this person:
Herold T – b. Peter Q – c. Arnold B – d. Paul C – e. Jon N
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
I always find the “Bitte lächeln!” rather funny in this context. I reported this to the provider, gmx.net, and they replied, apologizing for the “virus” I had received! But it is not exactly a virus. I have kept this message on my web location, paulcooijmans.com , in the category “Ethics”, with some more information.
Section 11: Sylvester Stallone and the Post-Modernist
Jacobsen: Who tried to emulate Sylvester Stallone? What was the end result?
Cooijmans: In the late 1990s, a former class mate of mine got back in contact. For a while he took guitar lessons from me, and had the habit of not wanting to leave when the lesson had ended, or at least not until my refrigerator was empty. On one occasion, he managed to eat an entire box of hagelslag (chocolate sprinkles) with the one slice of bread I had left to offer him. I made use of his presence by administering the Giga Test to him, an individual supervised test I had at the time. Remarkably, he had a perfect score on the mental arithmetic section.
He also told me that, after leaving school, he had developed a fixation on Sylvester Stallone, as in the Rocky films. He had trained for years to obtain a similar physique, and this included the use of anabolic testosteroids. He said he had beaten lamp posts in the streets with his fists until the bones in his hands broke, and had been hanging around in the nightlife, looking for people he could challenge to a fight. He had become a lot more aggressive and dominant than in our school days, and once when I tried to get him out of my house he refused and threatened to hit me.
At one point he became schizophrenic and ended up being hospitalized for long periods, sometimes under force for assaulting a psychiatric nurse. Once he escaped and walked all the way to my house late at night. When I opened the door, he said he wanted beer. I did not let him in, and he walked back again. He also had a habit of calling me on the telephone frequently, sometimes in the middle of the night so that I had to get out of bed and down the stairs, and then he said two words and hung up again. Once I changed my telephone number for that reason, but he found out the new number by calling my mother, whose number he still had from when we were class mates and I lived with my parents. He had become vengeful toward Stallone, and wanted to travel to the United States one day to give Sly a good beating.
He also spoke of a girl from our class, and said he had always been secretly in love with her. As it happened, she worked at the hospital where he was kept, and sometimes he waited for her to come out when her shift ended, which she did not like. He knew where she lived, and had stood guard opposite the house to observe her and her husband, whom he was planning to murder he said; it never got to that, insofar as I know. On one occasion he confided that even in our school days, he had been fantasizing during class about the girls in our school; the details of his fantasies are not suitable for publication, but involve knives and female private parts.
Since he was not making progress on the guitar and never practised, I ended the lessons and refunded the remainder of the fee, which he had paid in advance. The last time I saw him was when I participated in a running race on the terrain of the psychiatric institute where he lived. He kept intrusively talking to me while I tried to register for the race, aggressively hushing up the lady of the race administration who tried to enter me.
Jacobsen: What was noteworthy about the post-modernist who attended a meeting in the 1990s?
Cooijmans: This was a university teacher – I do not know in which field, perhaps post-modernism? – who regularly attended a certain I.Q. society meeting where I was present a number of times; the same place that was frequented by the casino-robber. I remember he expressed amazement that we were not all as thrilled as he was about post-modernism (I had no idea what that was at the time). Occasionally, he jumped up mid-sentence, spread out his arms, and ejaculated, “I’m here, I’m queer, check me out!” whereupon a certain girl applauded enthusiastically, saying, “Hey, totally okay man!” while the rest continued their conversation as if nothing had occurred.
Section 12: Conclusion
Jacobsen: Why did the interviewer change the conditions of the interview after already agreeing?
Cooijmans: Years ago someone wanted to interview me, and I said I was willing to cooperate, provided my answers would be used verbatim. He agreed, so I told him we could go ahead as far as I was concerned. Then he suddenly changed the conditions, saying that if I answered something he did not like or that made him look stupid, he would want me to change the answer. Of course I could not agree to that, and called off the interview. In fact I broke off contact with him for some time, as I find such behaviour despicable. My understanding is that this person had a fear that his questions were rather stupid, and was afraid that my answers would reveal that to the world; and he may have been right.
Jacobsen: Who has been spamming you for nearly two decades, even ten or more messages a day?
Cooijmans: Of course I can not name names in such cases, but one person has been sending an almost continuous stream of nonsensical messages, sometimes ten to twenty per day, since about 2005. I do not respond to most of them; occasionally I have to respond when he orders or takes tests. The messages make frequent mention of topics like the Central Intelligence Agency, China, some of the Giga Society members, hedge funds, hot girls, the Caribbean, and more.
Now and then the person also sends sensitive personal information, such as his street address, a photo of his identity card, login information of his e-mail account, medical information such as that he has schizophrenia, and so on.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.
Cooijmans: I never know what to say here. On second thought, I remember another weird occurrence; someone applied for membership in a society run by me, and I referred the person to the relevant society’s web location for the qualification information and registration form. Somehow this did not agree with the person, and she began to ask me which society I meant and what the pass level was. This was backward because she was the one who was applying. After some writing up and down it turned out she had no idea to which society she was writing and what the entrance requirement was. Again more writing up and down revealed she had been doing a mass application to many societies at once, so when I responded, she had no clue who I was and what societies I was involved in.
I subtly educated her to the extent that this was not how one applies for membership in I.Q. societies, and that one should study the information on a particular society’s web location before applying to that society. Indignant, she began to lecture me about kindness and compassion, and I ceased responding.
Finally, in the early days of the Test For Genius again, a Netherlander who had ordered the test called me. He said he had a perfect score on the Cattell Culture Fair, so 50 right on both forms and “I.Q.” 183. In his communication and further behaviour, he was a complete scatterbrain uttering mainly fast-flowing incoherent rambling. Since my test was typed on a typewriter (Olivetti) with hand-drawn pictures, he offered to computerize it for me. Out of curiosity, I let him send me his version.
I had rarely been so horrified. He had mangled literally everything: The instructions had been rewritten in a style I would consider patronizing toward primary school children, let alone intelligent adults. The verbal problems had been “corrected” in ways that betrayed he had not only not understood the problems, but had even not grasped the difference between the verbal analogies and the association problems. The spatial problems were simply missing as he possessed no computer graphics skills; he had left room for me to draw them in by hand, and even that room was immensely too small for the problems to fit there. I kindly thanked him for his efforts and reused the back of his printouts as scrap paper.
Discussion
The conversation with Paul Cooijmans offers a rare, firsthand glimpse into the unpredictable and often surreal world of high-I.Q. test administration and society membership. A recurring theme throughout the dialogue is the juxtaposition of rigorous testing procedures against a backdrop of personal eccentricities and unexpected human behavior. Several notable observations emerge:
Cooijmans recounts several instances where test recipients either misunderstood or manipulated the intended purpose of the tests. For example, the same customer who initially complained about receiving an English test despite ordering it, later insisted on a Netherlandic version—even though the test content remained unchanged. These incidents underscore the challenges that arise when language expectations, test administration, and individual perceptions intersect in a digital age where timing and communication can be easily misinterpreted.
One of the most dramatic episodes involves a candidate who submitted a fraudulent retest under multiple names—a maneuver that led to the infamous “beheaded man” case. This incident not only highlights vulnerabilities in test security but also reflects the lengths to which some individuals will go to manipulate outcomes. The fact that a high-scoring Netherlander eventually used pseudonyms (including that of a minor) to retake tests introduces ethical dilemmas that persist in high-stakes testing environments.
The narrative is replete with stories of individuals ranging from a would-be casino robber to a persistent spammer, and even to a person whose bizarre delusions of reference blurred the lines between personal identity and creative expression. These accounts suggest that within high-I.Q. circles, a combination of high cognitive ability and idiosyncratic personality traits can lead to both innovative contributions and, at times, destructive behaviors. The diversity of these experiences demonstrates that high intelligence does not uniformly translate to socially conventional behavior.
The interview highlights how digital platforms—such as Facebook and email—serve as double-edged swords. While they facilitate immediate feedback and rapid test delivery, they also enable misinterpretations (e.g., the exaggerated wait times) and provide avenues for both overt and covert manipulation of test results. The discussion of spamming and the misrepresentation of test conditions further illustrate the complexities inherent in administering tests in an era where online communication dominates.
The anecdotes raise important questions regarding ethical responsibilities and logistical challenges in test administration. Issues such as the proper handling of test fraud, maintaining secure communication channels, and ensuring that test takers have a clear understanding of what is expected of them are recurring concerns. The balance between being a benevolent test creator and maintaining strict quality control is shown to be delicate—often with humorous, yet cautionary, consequences.
In sum, the discussion elucidates the unpredictable interplay between standardized testing and human behavior. It emphasizes the need for clear protocols, robust security measures, and an understanding of the diverse motivations and behaviors of test-takers. While the high-I.Q. community is marked by intellectual brilliance, it is also subject to human foibles that can complicate even the most carefully designed assessments.
Methods
The interview with Paul Cooijmans was conducted in a semi-structured format on a date prior to its publication on January 22, 2025. Questions were designed to elicit detailed responses about oddities of experience of Cooijmans over many years in this area. Thematic question were sent based on prompts to Cooijmans who then provided typed responses.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 1). Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/cooijmans-strange-weird.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/cooijmans-strange-weird.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Strange Correspondence and Weird Experiences.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/cooijmans-strange-weird.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Wonderful Mkhutche is Humanists Malawi’s Executive Director. He spoke with Canadian humanist and writer Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Wonderful Mkhutche. We’re going to discuss humanism in Malawi, and we’ll also touch on witchcraft allegations. For an American humanist audience, Malawi may not come up as frequently as Canada might. To start, what is the relevance of humanism in a Malawian context?
Wonderful Mkhutche: Humanism is especially significant here among the small community of humanists. Humanism in Malawi is about challenging societal mindsets largely shaped by dominant Christian and Muslim beliefs.
Together, Christianity and Islam constitute about 90% of the population, alongside other beliefs such as traditional African religions and, to a lesser extent, Hinduism. Generally, Malawian society is deeply religious. As a humanist and someone who has been religious for most of my life, I have observed how religion has hindered social progress. My journey to humanism was fueled by a frustration with the limitations imposed by religious beliefs—the kind of restrictions that curb free thought. Any attempt to think outside these norms is often seen as rebellious and needing correction. Humanism, for me, was a way to break free from these boundaries.
Over the past ten years, I have been involved in humanism and have experienced growth in my social and moral awareness. This growth has extended beyond me; it has positively affected those around me, including family and friends, who have begun to question certain views on religion because of the changes they’ve seen in me. Humanism offers a path towards a more open-minded and progressive society in the larger Malawian context.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding witchcraft allegations, how common are they? And how does humanism, with its emphasis on science, empiricism, and skepticism, provide a basis to counter these beliefs, which are often rooted in superstition?
Mkhutche: Three-quarters of the population believes in witchcraft, and this belief impacts daily life in Malawi. Although witchcraft beliefs don’t always result in daily violence, people often blame illnesses, deaths, or misfortunes like job loss on witchcraft. These beliefs are primarily grounded in two foundations. First, there is a religious basis: as I mentioned, most Malawians are Christians or Muslims, and both the Bible and the Quran reference witchcraft. Rejecting witchcraft outright can feel like contradicting one’s faith. Secondly, there is a cultural foundation rooted in African spirituality and cosmology, where belief in witchcraft is widely accepted.
Humanism addresses these beliefs by challenging both religious and traditional foundations. In Malawi, humanism is unique in its approach to combating witchcraft beliefs because it promotes rational thinking and empirical evidence—offering a perspective that few others in society address.
Mkhutche: Other people may acknowledge that witchcraft exists, but they don’t believe we should be fighting or killing each other because of it. However, as humanists, we aim to eliminate the belief in witchcraft. We say witchcraft doesn’t exist, in the hope that, as people stop believing in it, the “virus” of superstition will also disappear from our society. That’s the unique approach humanism offers in addressing witchcraft. It’s the best way forward because we can’t allow people to believe in witchcraft and then expect them not to engage in violence because of that belief.
The best solution is to remove the belief, eliminating the associated harm.
Jacobsen: And what about individuals who were once Christian or Muslim, who believed in witches and witchcraft, and then came to be humanists like yourself? How do they describe their transformation away from superstition?
Mkhutche: Most people who shift away from that belief are Christians. We rarely see Muslims doing so, as Islam is a minority religion here. At times, Islam even has a soft spot for us humanists because there’s a form of Christian nationalism in Malawi, where Christians try to dominate society. Since Muslims can’t openly challenge this, humanism provides a voice against religious dominance. So when we speak against Christian nationalist tendencies, Muslims sometimes view us favorably.
However, the Christians who change their minds are few, as religious indoctrination is deep-rooted. Those who do shift often say, “I realize now that witchcraft wasn’t real; it was just a narrative implanted in me to explain social issues for which I didn’t have answers.” After that, they may join us in social media debates whenever we challenge beliefs in witchcraft. This transformation is something we see often. People who passionately argued with me five years ago now admit that we, as humanists, were right all along. They come out openly, acknowledging that they’ve changed their minds, though it takes time.
Jacobsen: What about public figures? Are there any celebrities, politicians, or public intellectuals in Malawi who promote humanism or humanistic values?
Mkhutche: No, that would be a dangerous stance to take. In Malawian society, openly denying witchcraft’s existence is risky. For example, if a musician or celebrity were to say witchcraft isn’t real, some people might stop supporting their work. I know some directors who agree with me that witchcraft doesn’t exist, but they lack the courage to speak publicly about it. Even for me, it hasn’t been easy. There’s a risk of losing economic opportunities simply for holding views that go against societal norms. This has been the case up until two or three years ago.
Right now, I see society beginning to open up. It’s creating space for some of us who are open to saying that witchcraft doesn’t exist. For example, the media often calls us whenever an event occurs, looking for our perspective. When I attend certain social events, and people recognize my name, that’s the first thing they mention.
They’ll say, “Yes, you’re the one who says witchcraft doesn’t exist. Tell me more.” So, the social space is gradually opening up, allowing me to voice my views. People may disagree with us, but they are willing to listen, even though these beliefs have been ingrained since birth. It would be even better if famous people were to speak openly about this issue.
This is why I’m motivated to climb as far as I can on the social ladder, to use whatever influence I may have to tell people that witchcraft isn’t real. I’ve seen how impactful that influence can be. Wherever I go, I represent that message. When people see me, they associate me with the message that witchcraft doesn’t exist. It works.
Jacobsen: What efforts are you making for humanism in Malawi and through organizations like Advocacy for Alleged Witches? How do you engage communities, villages, cities, and organizations with humanist principles to combat witchcraft allegations in Malawi?
Mkhutche: We have several approaches. The first is responding whenever there is a witchcraft-related case. In recent months, we haven’t had any cases of violence specifically due to witchcraft beliefs, though the narrative persists daily. However, whenever such a situation does arise, we see how we can respond—whether by reaching out to the traditional leaders in the area, speaking with the victims, or alerting the police, as we may not always be able to intervene directly. Even within our humanist community, not everyone wants to be on the front lines. Some prefer to keep their association with humanism discreet, even if they are critical of witchcraft or believe in God. So, although they are humanists, we can’t always rely on them for certain tasks.
For instance, when a media opportunity arises to discuss these issues, I may post in our group asking who is available, but only some respond, simply because they are afraid.
The second approach is media interviews. They are incredibly effective in spreading the message.
I recall a program on national radio where they invited me to share my views on witchcraft and the existence of God in a thirty-minute segment. They continue to rebroadcast that program, and I often receive feedback—people calling to hear more about certain topics. Some people already doubted the existence of witchcraft, so when they hear me say it doesn’t exist, they feel relieved, like they’ve finally found someone who thinks the same way. They reach out to connect with me.
At the University of Malawi, we also hold debates for students about various aspects of witchcraft and its impact on Malawian society. Events like these don’t start and end on campus; we invite journalists to cover them, and sometimes, we record these debates so they’re available online. We aim to use every possible opportunity to spread our message.
Jacobsen: One last question—something particularly relevant to humanists in the Global South compared to those in the Global North. In regions where safety, security, and privacy might be greater concerns, with law enforcement perhaps less accessible or social repercussions more severe, what risks should anyone in Malawi consider before coming out as a humanist? How might this offer a humbling perspective for others whose societies may not have these specific challenges, even though they face their issues?
Mkhutche: The risks of coming out as a humanist in Malawi are considerable. The first major risk is the loss of economic opportunities. It can be challenging to secure a contract or even employment if people know you don’t believe in witchcraft or, even more so, in God.
There’s also the risk of social isolation. I’ve seen cases where individuals’ families stop supporting them financially, whether for school fees or business opportunities because they’ve heard that person denies the existence of witchcraft or God. It’s a form of punishment for thinking differently. We have several cases like this.
Even in my experience, leaving religion didn’t immediately impact my economic situation, but I noticed some family members and friends began to distance themselves. I lost several friends, although I’ve reconnected with some over time. Others still won’t talk to me and say they’ll only reconnect the day I return to religion.
They were good friends then, but we’re no longer on good terms now. Those are some of the risks we face here.
When you compare this to the Global North, the situation is different because you live in societies where many people may align with your views. Here, however, in a country of 20 million people, imagine 19.5 million believing one thing and just a few of us holding a different perspective. It’s a significant challenge.
These issues keep arising, and you also asked about women and humanism. We don’t see many women coming forward—not because they aren’t there—they are. They speak about humanism privately, but publicly, they’re afraid. If a woman openly says she’s a humanist, very few men outside of other humanists would be willing to date or marry her. Many people here expect women to be religious, so women fear social isolation if they openly embrace humanism.
This interview will be for a flagship publication for American humanists, which will provide good exposure regarding our work on witchcraft allegations and advocacy in Malawi.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 10, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
*Updated January 27, 2025.*
Abstract
This interview includes a detailed conversation between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Kristóf Kovács, a Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Institute of Psychology and the Department of Counselling and School Psychology. Dr. Kovács leads the Cognitive Abilities Lab, focusing on research in cognitive abilities, intelligence, psychometrics, and their measurement. He critiques the limitations of IQ tests in assessing creativity, sensorimotor skills, or interpersonal abilities, emphasizing the need for detailed profiles for diagnostics over societal “IQ fetishism.” Dr. Kovács explores the importance of ethical and transparent research practices and provides a nuanced understanding of IQ scores and their applications. The discussion includes the historical context of IQ testing, its practical applications, and the sociological implications of the g-factor as a statistical construct.
Keywords: Cognitive Abilities, Diagnostic Context, Educational Interventions, Fluid Reasoning, IQ Distribution, IQ Fetishization, IQ Measurement, IQ Tests, Multiple Intelligences, Percentiles, Psychometrics, Sensorimotor Abilities, Standard Deviation, Working Memory
Introduction
The document features an engaging interview with Dr. Kristóf Kovács, conducted in 2025 by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, as a recommendation from Björn Liljeqvist, former chair of Mensa International. Dr. Kovács, a Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Institute of Psychology and the Department of Counselling and School Psychology, shares his insights on the measurement of intelligence, cognitive abilities, and psychometric tools. Leading the Cognitive Abilities Lab, Dr. Kovács critiques the limitations of IQ tests, emphasizing their inability to measure creativity, sensorimotor skills, and interpersonal abilities. He highlights the importance of providing detailed diagnostic profiles rather than relying on singular IQ scores. The interview delves into societal misconceptions, such as “IQ fetishism,” and clarifies the statistical construct of the g-factor, noting its utility in sociological studies but limited relevance for individual diagnostics. Dr. Kovács’ work underscores the need for ethical and transparent research practices and the refinement of tools to better capture the complexities of cognitive abilities. His perspectives challenge conventional views on intelligence testing and advocate for a more nuanced understanding of cognitive profiles for practical applications, ranging from education to legal contexts.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Dr. Kristóf Kovács
Section 1: Introduction and Context: Setting the Stage
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today, we are here with Dr. Kristóf Kovács. This interview is a recommendation from Björn Liljeqvist, so thank you, Björn. I interviewed with him a while ago. I have been interviewing many individuals from various groups, including Mensa. In high-IQ communities, I wanted to get a professional opinion about testing. So, I posed the first big question that people might have if they are stumbling upon this interview: How much do IQ tests measure intelligence? What is the overlap between IQ and intelligence? In other words, what is the overlap in this Venn diagram?
Section 2: Defining Intelligence: Beyond the Traditional Views
Dr. Kristóf Kovács: That is a very old question. Whether IQ tests measure intelligence is a controversial issue. I do not think it is a particularly useful question because, to a large extent, it depends on how we define intelligence. If intelligence traditionally meant some form of cognitive ability, then today, with enough research, one can find references to all sorts of intelligence.
There is a paradox I perceive here. People who are very critical of IQ tests and the concept of intelligence argue that IQ testing is flawed. Yet, simultaneously, they are quick to embrace the term intelligence. There is always an alternative concept proposed to counter IQ. The first major alternative was emotional intelligence, which, after 20–25 years of research, became a meaningful scientific construct, in my opinion. However, it does not necessarily need to be called intelligence—it could be termed emotional ability. Nevertheless, now we see references to concepts like spiritual intelligence, naturalist intelligence, and other types of intelligence.
Of course, IQ tests clearly do not measure intelligence if intelligence is defined broadly enough to include aspects such as one’s relationship to spirituality. IQ tests do not assess spirituality, emotionality, one’s connection to nature, interpersonal skills, self-awareness, or other qualities often labelled as intelligence today. Therefore, the extent to which IQ tests measure intelligence depends entirely on how intelligence is defined. Debates over definitions, in my experience, are not particularly useful.
I try to avoid using the term “intelligence” whenever possible. Interestingly, I used to work extensively with Mensa, which is probably how you found me through Björn. However, I am primarily a researcher specializing in individual differences in cognition. My academic work at the university involves a research position.
In my research, I cannot entirely avoid using the term “intelligence,” particularly in contexts related to Mensa, but I prefer to frame my research interests as focusing on cognitive abilities rather than intelligence. When we discuss cognitive abilities, there is no meaningful way to include aspects like spirituality.
Section 3: Cognitive Abilities vs. Intelligence: A Conceptual Shift
My research lab is called the Cognitive Abilities Lab—it is not called the Intelligence Lab. In my work, I consciously use the term cognitive abilities because it is plural. Intelligence, by contrast, is singular. As a researcher, discussing a range of specific abilities, such as fluid reasoning or crystallized knowledge, is far more meaningful.
Working memory or perceptual speed, and so on, are more meaningful constructs than a single general intelligence. General intelligence, in my opinion, is an index derived from various specific cognitive abilities. Still, it is not an ability in itself. For this reason, I prefer discussing cognitive abilities rather than intelligence. This approach avoids the type of definitional debates you raised. That said, I don’t want to circumvent the question completely.
IQ tests do a reasonable job if we define intelligence as cognitive ability. There’s a famous saying from Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others humanity has tried. When I teach this or present at conferences, I often draw a parallel, saying that IQ tests are the worst instruments for measuring intelligence—apart from all the others psychology has ever tried.
Jacobsen: That’s good. A different way to frame it is from an empirical basis. If we’re examining cognitive abilities, what has emerged from research over the past century or so regarding what IQ tests measure? Also, what do the tests not measure that we know fall under cognitive abilities?
Section 4: IQ Tests and Their Purpose: Strengths and Limitations
Kovács: That’s an interesting question. If we consider creativity a cognitive ability, IQ tests do not measure it. Creativity is assessed using creativity-specific tests, but it is a much harder construct to define, operationalize, and measure with psychometrically sound instruments.
Sensorimotor abilities are another relatively underexplored area in cognitive ability testing, especially in young children. In my lab, we are conducting a research project on this topic. Our findings suggest that in preschool children, sensorimotor abilities—such as balance or other basic motor skills—are strong predictors of cognitive abilities required in school settings. Interestingly, these correlations diminish after about age seven. However, in preschoolers aged four, five, and six, sensorimotor abilities are significantly linked to skills like memory and the ability to focus, which are crucial as children begin formal education.
Sensory motor abilities and creativity are two areas that, while reasonably considered cognitive, are not measured by IQ tests. IQ tests have historically focused on educational settings and later workplace applications. The military was among the first workplaces to use intelligence tests to predict achievement or trainability. What schools and workplaces require has heavily influenced the development of these instruments.
Section 5: Standard Deviation and Interpretability of Scores
Jacobsen: People researching IQ might encounter terms like standard deviation, whether 15, 16, or other values, and lists of IQ scores—highest IQ score lists, historical figures, famous people, etc. What should people think critically about when they encounter these references? Regarding some of these popularized extraordinary IQ scores, what can we reasonably say about their accuracy? Specifically, how do high and low scores relate to rarity percentiles?
Kovács: That’s a great question. There are two parts here: one about standard deviation and the other about the interpretability of the range. The most common standard deviation is the 15-point standard deviation, which was established with the Wechsler scale. This is the standard IQ distribution you’ll find in textbooks. IQ is typically presented as a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Here’s how it works: your raw test score is standardized, converting it into a z-score, expressing your performance in standard deviation units. Then, we assign 15 points for every standard deviation. For example, if you score exactly one standard deviation above the mean, your IQ score will be 115. If you score two standard deviations above the mean, your IQ score will be 130.
You’re right, though, that other standard deviations are in use. For instance, some tests historically used a 16-point standard deviation. However, I’m unsure if that is still true with the Stanford-Binet scales. The Cattell scale, on the other hand, used to have a standard deviation of 24. As someone who has provided feedback on IQ tests, I find this variability somewhat frustrating.
Many people, understandably, don’t realize that IQ is simply a relative scale. Without a background in statistics, interpreting it can be confusing. IQ is not an absolute measure.
For example, you can express even something like height on an IQ scale. You do not need to, since height has an absolute zero, so we use absolute measures like centimetres. IQ, by contrast, lacks an absolute zero—it’s purely comparative. Everyone is compared to the mean, and differences are expressed in standard deviation units before being translated into IQ scores. But if you really want you can express height using an IQ-style scale. In this case it becomes a relative score. For instance, let us assume that the average height for Canadian males is 175 centimetres, with a standard deviation of 6 centimetres. If someone is one standard deviation above the mean, their “height IQ” would be 115. This approach standardizes the data for easier comparison.
Jacobsen: Centimeters work—we’re Canadian and use metric and imperial measurements.
Kovács: Perfect. So, if we continue with that example, a two-standard-deviation height above the mean—187 centimetres—would correspond to a “height IQ” of 130. Of course, this is just an analogy to explain how IQ operates as a comparative scale rather than an absolute measure.
IQ scores can always be translated back to standard or z-score scores. For example, if you’re just above one standard deviation above the mean, your z-score would be +1. If you’re exactly as tall as the average Canadian male, your height in a standard z-score would be 0. If you’re one standard deviation above the mean, your z-score is +1. Theoretically, you could translate that into an IQ scale, but why would you? There’s an absolute zero with height, so you don’t need to use a relative scale like IQ.
IQ, conversely, is purely a relative scale. If you know someone has an IQ of 150 but don’t know the standard deviation being used; you can’t determine if it’s three standard deviations above the mean or slightly less than two. For example, with a standard deviation of 24, an IQ of 150 represents something different with a standard deviation of 15. People often don’t realize the importance of standard deviation in interpreting IQ scores.
Section 6: Percentiles vs. IQ Scores: Simplifying the Complexity
At the same time, there’s this strange IQ fetish in society. For example, you often hear claims from celebrities—actors or actresses—saying they have an IQ of 180. These numbers are thrown around, but they lack context. In my experience, percentiles are far more useful and comprehensible for the general public.
If you have a normal distribution of scores, any z-score can be converted into a percentile or an IQ score. Theoretically, These measures are interchangeable, but percentiles are much easier for most people to understand. For instance, if you tell a parent their 12-year-old outperforms 95 out of 100 children of the same age, they will understand what that means. Similarly, if you say, “Your child has a better vocabulary than 98 out of 100 children their age,” it’s immediately relatable.
If you tell the parent that the 98th percentile corresponds to a z-score of +2 or an IQ of 130, it becomes more abstract. If you say their child has an IQ of 130, most people won’t know how to react. Should they be ecstatic? Perhaps they read in the paper that morning about a celebrity claiming an IQ of 190, and they might feel disappointed. In reality, an IQ of 130 is excellent—it’s in the top 2% and qualifies for Mensa membership.
If I were in charge, I’d eliminate IQ scores entirely and only use percentiles. In my experience, IQ scores create more confusion than clarity. Unless someone in this field understands the statistical nuances, they often misinterpret the scores. Since IQ scores can always be converted to percentiles, the latter is more intuitive and effective for communication.
On the other hand, it couldn’t be clearer to a parent if you say, “Your child outperforms 90 out of 100 peers,” or, “Your child is weaker than 80 out of 100 peers.” That immediately highlights whether a specific area is a strength or a weakness for the child.
Section 7: Diagnostic Contexts: The Importance of Comprehensive Testing
The other question was about the range of interpretable scores. Typically, all scores are normed against a sample, usually a few thousand people. For example, in a representative sample in the U.S., you might have 5,000 or 6,000 participants, with around 200 individuals for a specific age group, such as 12-year-olds. When you compare an individual to that age group, anything beyond one in 200 is based on extrapolation.
The more you project beyond your data, the less accurate the interpretation becomes. For instance, if someone claims a child is “smarter than one in a million,” but the comparison is based on only 200 children, that projection is highly speculative. Typically, scores within plus or minus two standard deviations from the mean are interpretable. A third standard deviation can also be meaningful, especially for individually administered tests that take significant time to complete.
IQ scores are often calculated as scores derived from multiple subtests. If someone scores in the top 2% across five subtests, the likelihood of that occurring across all subtests is much rarer than 2%. To explain this with an analogy: imagine you’re looking for people who are taller than 98% of Canadians and have driven more miles than 98% of Canadians. The probability of finding someone who satisfies both criteria is much smaller than 2%.
Similarly, if someone scores very highly on multiple subtests, it provides a stronger basis for interpreting their overall IQ as being exceptional. By contrast, if someone scores high on just one test, that result is more likely to be “noisy,” with a larger margin of error.
In statistical textbooks, normal distributions are usually illustrated up to plus or minus three standard deviations because this range covers 99.7% of the entire distribution. Only 0.3% of scores fall outside this range—0.15% on each end. For example, anything above three standard deviations would represent about 3 individuals out of every 2,000. That’s why illustrations of normal distributions in textbooks typically stop at three standard deviations; beyond that, the probabilities become increasingly rare and harder to measure accurately.
Up to plus or minus three standard deviations is meaningful and reliable. I know there are groups like the higher sigma societies, but I don’t want to comment. I’ll leave that to someone you might interview from those societies. For the record, what I’m describing here is what you’ll find in standard statistical textbooks. Reliable and valid testing generally falls within plus or minus three standard deviations. Beyond that, scores become far less reliable.
I’d be skeptical of scores above +3 standard deviations and specially above +4. A score of +4 can be equivalent to one in a million. For instance, someone claiming, “My child is smarter than 999,999 other children,” raises the obvious question: how do you know?
Section 8: Multiple Intelligences and Alternative Theories
Jacobsen: These issues often tie into statistical limitations, such as sample size and whether the test was properly proctored. Then, there are potential conflicts of interest. For example, if someone takes a test designed by someone they know, the results could be biased. Setting aside those issues, we’ve covered a lot so far: definitions of intelligence, the scope of IQ tests, reframing to cognitive abilities, standard deviations, and reliable ranges. What about the context in which these tests are proctored? For example, tests developed with significant investment and large sample sizes are conducted in secure environments where answers aren’t leaked—what is the importance of those measures when trying to measure what IQ tests aim to assess?
Kovács: In short, high stakes. Suppose you want an elaborate and thorough measurement, especially when the stakes are high. In that case, ensuring the test is secure, properly administered, and statistically sound is essential. This is particularly critical in diagnostic contexts.
One high-stakes example is the death penalty in the U.S. Individuals with an IQ below 70 cannot be sentenced to death. Determining whether someone’s IQ is below this threshold becomes a matter of life and death—the highest stakes imaginable. While that’s not my area of research, it’s an extreme case where the reliability of IQ testing carries enormous weight.
More commonly, professionally proctored IQ tests are administered for diagnostic purposes, particularly in school settings. In the U.S. alone, millions of individually administered IQ tests are conducted yearly. These tests help identify cognitive strengths and weaknesses to guide educational and developmental interventions.
Section 9: The g-Factor: Index, Not Ability
A comprehensive profile, derived from a range of subtests, is so important. It provides a detailed view of strengths and weaknesses. For example, one of the most common recommendations by school psychologists is to suggest that a child be given extra time on tasks or exams.
Imagine a child with a profile showing excellent fluid reasoning (nonverbal problem-solving), strong verbal ability, and strong spatial ability but only slightly above average working memory and average perceptual speed. This profile often leads to frustration because the child’s abilities outpace their processing speed. In other words, their strengths cannot fully compensate for the slower speed at which they process information. This kind of detailed profile allows a school psychologist to make targeted recommendations to address the child’s specific challenges.
Individually administered tests are resource-intensive, typically taking one to one-and-a-half hours of a psychologist’s time in a one-on-one setting. This level of investment is far greater than administering a group test to 30 students, so it’s generally reserved for high-stakes situations. For instance, if a child is underachieving, frustrated, or showing signs of learning difficulties, then creating a full-ability profile is worth the investment. A detailed profile highlights individual strengths and weaknesses. It is far more useful for diagnostic purposes than a single overall score.
When I teach this, I often use an analogy to explain the limitations of an overall IQ score. Imagine visiting your doctor and receiving a detailed lab analysis of your blood sample. You see values for glucose levels, cholesterol, vitamin levels, and so on. Imagine the doctor told you, “Your health IQ is 70.” What would you learn from that? You’d know you’re in trouble—only 2% of people your age are less healthy than you—but it wouldn’t help you or your doctor determine what’s wrong or how to address it.
That’s the issue with relying solely on an overall IQ score. It’s like receiving a “health IQ” score that says you’re less healthy than 95% of your peers. While that might motivate you to worry, it doesn’t provide actionable insights. Similarly, while overall IQ scores can be useful to an extent—such as for Mensa membership, where the goal is to identify the top 2% of cognitive performers—they don’t provide the diagnostic depth necessary to understand and address specific challenges.
A health quotient (HQ) might be useful if your goal is to create a society comprising the healthiest 2% of people. However, if someone is unhealthy, an HQ score won’t help them. What they need is a detailed diagnostic to identify the specific problem. That’s why we use detailed tests and invest significant resources and time to assess a child individually and create a profile of their strengths and weaknesses.
Jacobsen: These are important cautionary tales about interpreting results. What about multiple intelligences, Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and the g-factor? While there’s no general consensus, what is the prevailing view?
Kovács: These are all controversial topics. Regarding multiple intelligences, I think Howard Gardner’s work critiques the educational system more than a true theory of individual differences. Gardner has never shown much interest in rigorously measuring these intelligences. Essentially, his theory advocates focusing on children who might not be conventionally “smart” but excel in areas like social skills or the arts. It’s an example of extending the concept of intelligence, which is valuable in its own way. However, Gardner hasn’t developed reliable assessment tools for most of this proposed intelligence.
Whether we should call someone “intelligent” for having exceptional interpersonal skills despite not being conventionally smart is a matter of perspective. I’ll leave that judgment to others. As for the g-factor, that’s closer to my area of research. My work focuses extensively on interpretations of the g-factor, and I’ve published on this topic. We have a framework called the Process Overlap Theory, which explains the g-factor without requiring the assumption of a general intelligence or overarching ability. Naturally, I’m biased because this is my research field. Still, I see the g-factor as a summary or index score of separate cognitive abilities.
The g-factor is statistically advantageous in many ways. While it doesn’t represent a single ability, it’s a latent construct useful for certain purposes. For example, suppose you’re conducting large-scale sociological research and want to study how cognitive functioning predicts income. In that case, the g-factor is a highly effective tool. In that context, it doesn’t matter whether someone excels in working memory, perceptual speed, or vocabulary—the overall level of cognitive functioning matters.
However, the utility of the g-factor depends entirely on your purpose. For diagnostics, the g-factor is not particularly helpful. Like the HQ analogy—it provides an overall score but doesn’t tell you much about specific strengths or weaknesses. If your goal is to diagnose and support individuals, identifying patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses is far more informative. On the other hand, if you’re studying broad trends, such as the relationship between cognitive functioning and socioeconomic outcomes, the g-factor is invaluable.
If you want to predict someone’s salary based on their cognitive abilities, overall scores or indicators like the g-factor are very useful. However, I don’t see the g-factor as a proxy for a single “general intelligence.” Instead, it’s an index score calculated from various distinct abilities.
Jacobsen: That’s a very interesting perspective. I hadn’t heard it framed as an index at a sociological level rather than as a generalized commentary on a larger sociological construct. Viewing it as an index aligns with your emphasis on cognitive abilities about different factors. That makes the research clearer, too.
Kovács: Exactly. I’m glad it makes sense.
Section 10: Final Reflections: Caution and Clarity in Assessment
Jacobsen: Any final important things people should remember when they look at scores or assessments?
Kovács: That topic would take over a minute to address, so I’ll leave it at that for now. If that’s okay with you, my part is complete. I look forward to seeing the transcript.
Jacobsen: Excellent.
Kovács: Thank you for your time and patience.
Jacobsen: I truly appreciate this conversation.
Kovács: Thank you so much. Cheers!
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Kristóf Kovács provides a detailed exploration of how modern psychology understands and measures cognitive abilities. Dr. Kovács challenges the traditional notion of “intelligence” as a singular construct, emphasizing instead the pluralistic nature of cognitive abilities such as fluid reasoning, crystallized knowledge, perceptual speed, and working memory. By moving beyond a single “IQ” score, he advocates for a more nuanced view that can guide targeted educational and diagnostic interventions. A recurring theme in the conversation is the distinction between intelligence as a broad concept and IQ scores as comparative, standardized metrics. Dr. Kovács underscores that IQ testing, while not perfect, remains one of the best available tools for evaluating cognitive performance—reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s remark about democracy being the “worst form of government except for all the others.” The interview critiques the widespread fetishization of extreme IQ scores, highlighting that many of these extraordinary claims lack robust statistical grounding, especially beyond three standard deviations from the mean.
Another significant thread is the question of what IQ tests fail to measure. Dr. Kovács points to creativity and sensorimotor abilities as cognitive functions often overlooked in conventional testing. Additionally, the conversation addresses multiple intelligences (e.g., emotional or spiritual intelligence) and how broadening the definition of “intelligence” can move us away from precise measurement, potentially conflating distinct skill sets under one umbrella term. The importance of standardized, proctored testing environments also features prominently. High-stakes scenarios—such as determining if an individual’s cognitive functioning meets legal thresholds—demand rigorous procedures to ensure both validity and reliability. Dr. Kovács illustrates how a more detailed cognitive profile, built from a series of subtests, can offer actionable insights. By examining strengths and weaknesses, educators and clinicians can better tailor interventions for individual needs.
Ultimately, the conversation highlights that while IQ tests serve as valuable predictors in large-scale sociological research—such as forecasting educational or occupational outcomes—their utility in diagnosing and guiding individuals hinges on deeper, more granular analyses of cognitive abilities. Dr. Kovács calls for a balance between recognizing the broad applications of IQ tests and acknowledging the complexity of human cognition, urging educators, psychologists, and policymakers alike to interpret scores with both caution and context in mind.
Methods
The interview with Dr. Kristóf Kovács was conducted in a semi-structured format on a date prior to its publication on January 10, 2025. Scott Douglas Jacobsen coordinated this conversation after receiving a recommendation from Björn Liljeqvist, former chair of Mensa International. Questions were designed to elicit detailed responses about IQ measurement, cognitive abilities, and the practical implications of test usage in educational and diagnostic settings. The session was recorded with the informed consent of both parties to ensure accuracy in transcription. Post-interview, the recording was transcribed verbatim and subsequently organized into thematic sections to align with the central topics covered, including the definition of intelligence, the role of standard deviations, and the limitations of IQ testing. This thematic organization aimed to provide readers with a coherent narrative, linking empirical research to real-world applications. By employing a semi-structured interview technique, Jacobsen allowed Dr. Kovács the flexibility to elaborate on specific areas of his expertise, while ensuring the conversation remained focused on key issues of interest to high-IQ communities, educators, and psychologists. This methodological choice facilitated a balanced dialogue, blending guiding questions with open-ended discussions that illuminate the complexities of measuring and interpreting human cognitive abilities.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 28: Dr. Kristóf Kovács on Accuracy in IQ, Intelligence, and Cognitive Abilities [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-28
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 19, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview explores the multifaceted experiences of fatherhood through the perspectives of Giga Society members Rick Rosner, Scott Durgin, and Matthew Scillitani, as well as the reflections of Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The conversation traverses diverse topics, including the evolution of parenting styles, the influence of generational gaps, character development in children, and the challenges and rewards of fatherhood. The dialogue offers insights into Rosner’s unconventional career and parenting approach, Durgin’s emphasis on exposing his children to diverse experiences, and Scillitani’s early journey as a father. The interview highlights shared themes of reflection, adaptation, and a deep commitment to fostering meaningful relationships with their children.
Keywords: character development, fatherhood, generational differences, life lessons, moral decisions, parenting, perseverance, personal growth, resilience, trauma
Introduction
In this comprehensive interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages with three members of the Giga Society—Rick Rosner, Scott Durgin, and Matthew Scillitani—to explore the complexities of fatherhood. Each contributor brings a unique perspective shaped by their personal experiences, intellectual insights, and cultural contexts.
Matthew Scillitani, a software engineer from Cary, North Carolina, is a member of the Giga Society, an exclusive high-IQ organization. He is currently pursuing an M.S. in Computer Science at Georgia Tech with a focus in machine learning. Scillitani has a diverse professional background, previously working as a web developer, SEO specialist, research psychologist, and data analyst. He is bilingual; learning Dutch to solve Netherlandic puzzles and read Dutch books. His personal interests include machine learning, puzzling, nutrition, world history, and spending time with family.
Scott Durgin, a member of the Giga Society, is recognized for his profound intellectual insights and wide-ranging expertise. His work explores critical thinking, science fiction, and sociopolitical issues, focusing on the interplay of science, philosophy, and history. A polymath and a passionate advocate of evidence-based reasoning, Durgin emphasizes the importance of education, freedom, and intellectual curiosity. He has contributed significantly to advanced problem-solving and scientific innovation through professional roles in engineering and academia. Durgin also delves deeply into historical figures’ cultural and philosophical legacy, exemplifying a dedication to interdisciplinary exploration and lifelong learning.
Rick Rosner, born May 2, 1960, is an American television writer and reality TV personality with one of the highest recorded IQs. Known for his unconventional career path, Rosner worked as a stripper, bouncer, and roller-skating waiter before entering television. He has contributed to shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and gained notoriety for suing “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” over a flawed question. Rosner has been featured in documentaries and commercials and received multiple industry nominations, including Emmy and Writers Guild Awards. His life blends high intellect with quirky career choices and contributions to the entertainment world.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: Matthew Scillitani, Rick Rosner, Scott Durgin
Section 1: Introduction to the Series
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, three Giga-Society members, Paul Cooijmans from 1996, who are dads. We’re calling this series Fatherhood Facts and Opinions. So, what are your thoughts on fatherhood?
Section 2: Reflections on Generations of Fatherhood
Rick Rosner: I have several generations to compare—not just my experiences as a dad but also my experiences with my two dads, my biological dad and my stepdad. My stepdad did a better job than my biological dad. I was with my stepdad for 11 months of the year. He was married to my mom, and he tried hard with me. I was a difficult kid, and he faced significant pressures from his family, which he tried not to inflict on us.
He was a good man; I wish I had known and treated him better. However, the concept of fatherhood, even as a topic, might not have come up in his generation. Parenting wasn’t even a term. It may have appeared in one in a million publications before 1980, but it wasn’t something people thought about much.
You had children, sent them to school, and they were just your kids. You told them what to do. The idea of working on being a parent wasn’t a thing until the 1980s. For most people, laissez-faire parenting is the notion that if you provided your kids with food, a place to live, and clothing, had dinner with them, watched TV together and sent them to school; everything would turn out fine.
Section 3: Parenting in the 20th Century
Rosner: My biological dad and my mom got divorced when I was an infant, and it wasn’t an amicable divorce. He was always behind on child support. At one point, when my mom and I visited him to see if he would contribute to my college expenses, he claimed I wasn’t his real son, that he didn’t love me, and that his real son was my stepbrother—whom my dad had adopted. He was just being cruel. He got better later and was a better grandfather, but back then, he was difficult.
He was a workaholic. Even with the kids he lived with full-time, he wasn’t very available to them because he was always at the office. People found it odd, and his second wife eventually grew tired of it, but it wasn’t that unusual for the 1970s.
Section 4: Modern Parenting Reflections
Rosner: My child was born in 1995. My wife and I have spent much time reflecting on our lives. I’ve been to at least six therapists in my lifetime, and I’ve also tried writing my autobiography for decades. My wife has also spent time in therapy, though she’s less troubled than I am. She has her wounds from her upbringing, particularly related to her mom.
Her dad was kind but quiet, reflecting the style of his generation. Suppose you’ve seen the movie Postcards from the Edge. You know that Shirley MacLaine plays the overbearing mom, and the dad is always in the background. In that case, I don’t think he has a single line. That dynamic reminds me of her upbringing.
Dads were quieter; they weren’t as involved, for the most part. Carol and I had our child during an era when parenting was fully in focus, and we tried to be conscientious and avoid repeating our parents’ mistakes. We didn’t become tiger parents, hovering over everything, but we were fortunate to have a good, engaging child to be around. We just tried to support her and provide help without making that help unfair.
Section 5: College Admissions and Parental Support
Rosner: A few years ago, maybe three or four, there was a college admissions scandal the Feds called Varsity Blues. Parents were spending a million dollars, half a million, bribing colleges. They used a college admissions expert to set up bribes for admissions offices to get their kids in, even if they weren’t entirely qualified.
We didn’t do any of that, but we did much studying about what it took to get into selective colleges. We became a three-person team: my wife, our child, and I dedicated to helping her. She earned a scholarship to a private high school, which was a great opportunity because private schools tend to have better counselling departments.
So, I guess it was a four-person team—three of us, plus the admissions counsellor—strategizing and assembling the best admissions packet we could. We ensured she took the right classes but didn’t push her into anything. She pushed herself. She took many AP classes and even hired me as her PSAT tutor because she wanted to be a National Merit Scholar, even though that’s mostly a meaningless distinction. I pushed her hard until she fired me for going too far.
I had her take 80 practice SAT and PSAT tests at one point. We were resources for her in what she wanted to do. We get along with her, though she’s cited things we’ve done that she says caused her some trauma. For instance, I used to take her to Adam Sandler movies that I thought were harmless but might have been over her head.
She once mentioned that I took her to a Molly Shannon movie where Shannon plays a clumsy high school girl who often shows her underwear. She said that was traumatic. I didn’t mean for it to be, but I screwed up some things too.
We took her out a lot, even when she was a baby. I’m socially awkward, and my wife is shy but not awkward. We’d go to the gym with our baby, and while one of us worked out, the other would sit in the lobby with her. This started within two weeks of her birth and continued as a routine. She was exposed to many people from an early age.
Our child turned out to be quite gregarious. My role has been to be supportive without too much pressure—helping her decide what she wants to do and supporting her. My wife and I have been lucky to have a child amenable to that parenting style.
We’ve seen other equally reasonable parents whose kids weren’t as open to that approach, and it didn’t work as well for them. So, we were fortunate.
More questions? I looked around the question, but that’s the best I could do.
Section 7: Diverse Life Lessons from Family
Scott Durgin: If I were to drastically reduce life lessons learned from some family members: From my mother I learned to doubt; my father, to observe, work and fucking WORK; my brother to teach; my children to wonder and grow; their mother to believe; my dog to dig, to SEARCH; my new wife to listen and live carefree. Focusing on my father, who was 13th generation descendant from William Brewster (patriarch of the Mayflower) and also Rev. Robert Cushman, down through many generations of war veterans I learned further the values of perseverance, solitude, silence, respect and diligence. He was austere and severe with very little verbal communication throughout 16 years: an only son of an only son, so spent much time alone himself. First real job for him was a ranger spending weeks at a time in the Maine wilderness. This followed his short time in the army as a trained marksman, though never seeing much action between the Korean and Vietnam wars. After that, Engineering (Highway). I only learned to not despise him once reaching my early twenties. He carved his own gun stocks, bows and arrows, so I learned how to hunt, carve and navigate too. Music was plentiful growing up, so I learned to play (horns, percussion mostly) and became an audiophile before 15. Despite all these skills, his fatherly nature was perceived by me as minimal once I figured it all out. I was intent on raising my own children with many opposite intents, but in reality the lessons I learned from Dad were quite healthy after some reflection. Communication was non verbal, almost 90-100 % by example or symbolic. He was a man of few words. I am also, but with my children I attempted to improve greatly upon the past.
Section 8: Early Parenting Experiences
Matthew Scillitani: Fatherhood is a wonderful experience so far. To be fair, I’m only six months in… But no complaints from me. Week over week, I watch in awe as my daughter develops new skills and personality traits. I know that every parent thinks their kid is special, but my daughter has really exceeded my expectations in every way. By three months, she already had the fine motor coordination to turn book pages. By four months, she was solving color and shape puzzles designed for one year olds. Now at six months, she’s catching balls and scooting around. She’s also very giggly, which brings a smile to my face even when she wakes me up at 4 AM…
Speaking of, there are some drawbacks to fatherhood (and parenthood, in general). Less free time, less sleep, less romance, etc. But it’s all worth it. When I watch my daughter interacting with the world, it’s the most spectacular thing I’ve ever seen or had the pleasure to take part in. I only hope that I do a good job and don’t make any big mistakes. It’s probably every parent’s worst nightmare to mess their kid up in some unforeseeable way.
Section 9: Challenges and Adjustments in Parenting Styles
Jacobsen: Do you think your parenting style has changed from decade to decade as you’ve developed?
Rosner, I feel bad now because our kid is 6,000 miles away in England, and my wife texts her much more than I do. I feel bad that my wife has more daily interactions with her than I do. It feels a little awkward for me—I should do more of it so it doesn’t feel so awkward.
I should check in with her more often. That has changed; it was more equal during our kid’s first decade than now, in her third decade. Even so, I still help out where I can. For instance, every piece of writing needs to be edited.
So she sent me her writing, and I gave it a medium-intensity edit. I catch typos, note things I don’t think are clear, and point out repetitive word choices. Everybody should have an editor or learn to become their editor. I enjoy it—it’s a way to stay in touch with her.
Durgin: My philosophy and effort was to expose my children to as many experiences as possible as early as possible so that they had a much wider range of potential than I did. Art, books, film, concerts, education, museums, sports, science, exercise, outdoors, indoors, woods, beach and mountains, antiques, you name it. They became successful as I had hoped. This really built upon my childhood and took it to higher levels. I don’t think I’d change much of that. What I did try to change was communicating much more often with a high effort toward clarity and non-judgmental open advice.
Scillitani: This isn’t applicable to me yet, but I’ll add that my parenting style has changed even in the few months that I’ve been a dad. In the beginning, I admittedly had little patience and felt like pulling my hair out constantly. Not being able to sit down and work on something without interruption was a huge adjustment for me, and multiple times I sped through caring for my daughter so that I could get back to what I was doing. But now I realize that was foolish. Whether it’s work or leisure, whatever I’m doing isn’t anywhere near as important as spending time with my daughter. If I’m solving a puzzle or playing a game, I’ll forget all about it in a month anyway. And why am I working? For recognition, wealth, or to support my family? It took a few months to get my priorities straight, but luckily that happened before it was too late.
Section 10: Perspectives on Character and Generational Parenting
Jacobsen: How do you instill character in smart kids? Because smart kids, if they go bad—like amoral or even immoral—that can be a concern.
Rosner: Okay, I don’t know how you instill character in smart kids. With our kid, we were lucky that she didn’t feel the need to be of bad character. We know other kids who acted out at various points in their lives, and we could see how that happens. It’s not necessarily the fault of the kid or the parents.
It’s often due to personality and circumstances. In the 1970s, for example, there was more emphasis on programs like the Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. Many kids were Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, or Webelos, between Cub and Boy Scouts. There was an effort to instill character through programs like that or by being active in the church.
Even in the 1970s, though, Scouting was beginning to fade. It didn’t fit into the disco or hippie eras. But there was still this idea that if you grew up the right way, you would be of good character. That notion has diminished over time, partly because of the influence of social media.
Social media is pervasive, almost like a guide to life, but it makes people incredibly self-centred. Later generations seem more self-centred, but you can’t entirely blame them. They’re surrounded by stimuli that promote selfishness. You can see how social media could make people less empathetic or even turn them into assholes.
As for smart people, I think there’s a tendency for very intelligent individuals to be a bit sociopathic. I forget the exact distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, but highly intelligent people might look at moral rules and see them as arbitrary.
At least for me, I don’t believe in a traditional God-keeping score. Some aspects of morality are built into the universe, but not to the extent that Jesus tracks every move. A smart person might be tempted to break traditional moral rules without religion. However, a smart person could also recognize that morality is a useful framework—it’s practical because acting immorally doesn’t get you anywhere.
For the most part, behaving reasonably well leads to better outcomes. Does that make sense?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Now, I never taught that idea to our kids. She didn’t need to be taught morality. She happens to be—knock on wood—not a psychopath.
When you look at psychopaths who act out, they might be less intelligent than those who don’t. So, there you go.
Durgin: Kids have character already. I learned that very little effort by me was necessary to impose or instill character. Stuff they learn in kindergarten is sufficient. Story telling and play acting was a daily occurrence so I let the story sink in naturally; any addition by me was an imposition (at least I think so). I was never violent, never deceitful, always frank and never tied any sort of morality lessons to religion, despite exposing my kids to a variety of church activities. Live and let live was probably the example I exuded most of the time.
Scillitani: Leading by example. I’ve always hated the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality of many parents. If you, the parent, aren’t even able to muster up the willpower to do the right thing, how the hell is your child supposed to? When important moral decisions arise, it’s also useful to talk through them with children. I do this with myself even now as an adult. What is the proper thing to do? Why do I think that? What are the repercussions? Is it practical?
Jacobsen: What do you notice about parenting when you’re in your 80s and your children are 40, 50, or 60, compared to people with newborns? How does that differ?
Rosner: All right. Well, it’s nice to have your parents around as long as possible, which happens more often now than 100 years ago. My wife got to keep her mom until just after her mom’s 90th birthday. My mom passed away at 88 and two-thirds.
Everyone has some trouble with their parents, at least in our generation—people in their late 50s or 60s with parents in their 80s. I don’t know of any parent in their 80s who doesn’t have behavioural issues that can be a challenge for their kids. For instance, many parents refuse to adjust to their physical limitations, like falling frequently.
Falling is a terrible, often life-ending event for people in their 80s. Many parents don’t take precautions, like getting Life Alert or similar devices, and it’s dangerous. It probably contributed to the increasing debilitation of both Carol’s mom and my mom.
Carol and I have often asked each other, “When, between now—our age now—and our 80s if we live that long, are we going to turn into assholes?” I don’t know. I don’t want to be.
I’m well aware of the dangers of falling, even in my mid-60s. I tripped off a curb recently and caught myself on my wrist. I probably cracked or smashed a bone in my wrist. You see NBA players take falls like that multiple times in a game, but I’m more fragile.
Parenting in your 50s—well, being a kid in your 50s with parents in your 80s—often involves trying to guide your parents into healthier behaviours. Carol has been after me to get hearing aids and test my hearing. I do have hearing loss, especially at higher frequencies, but I can get along without hearing aids for now.
She argues that if you go too long without correcting your hearing, your brain loses the ability to interpret signals. My brain is still okay, but I’ll probably get hearing aids eventually. I’m not as resistant to the idea as the older generation.
Both our moms had issues with hearing aids. They didn’t wear them enough, let the batteries die, and left them unused. I’ll use mine properly when I get them, stay connected to the world, and try to preserve my brain. I’ll do my best not to turn into a senescent asshole.
Durgin: Not sure how to answer. Generational gaps are always problematic no matter how one attempts to distinguish between better and worse. Right thinking and right action takes decades to master, no matter who you are.
Jacobsen: Let’s call that part one a stop.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and three Giga Society members—Rick Rosner, Scott Durgin, and Matthew Scillitani—offers a multifaceted exploration of fatherhood, personal development, and intellectual engagement. Rick Rosner reflects on his upbringing with two fathers and the generational differences in parenting styles, emphasizing his stepfather’s resilience and his own approach to supporting his child without undue pressure. Rosner also discusses the evolution of parenting as a concept, contrasting the laissez-faire style of the 1970s with more intentional approaches to parenting in modern times. His candid reflections highlight the challenges and rewards of raising a child with an emphasis on education and personal growth.
Scott Durgin contributes insights from his lineage and upbringing, drawing lessons from his father’s austere yet skilled approach to life. Durgin’s parenting philosophy centers on exposing his children to diverse experiences and fostering open communication. He underscores the importance of instilling curiosity and resilience while avoiding impositions that might stifle their natural character development. His reflections provide a nuanced view of how historical and cultural legacies influence parenting choices. Matthew Scillitani, as a new father, shares his initial experiences and challenges, expressing awe at his daughter’s rapid development and the joy of witnessing her growth.
He acknowledges the adjustments required in balancing work, leisure, and family life, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing time with his daughter over external distractions. Scillitani’s insights highlight the early stages of fatherhood and the evolving nature of parental responsibilities. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and evolving nature of fatherhood. The interview underscores themes of resilience, personal growth, and the interplay of individual experiences and societal changes in shaping parenting approaches.
Methods
The interviews with Rick Rosner, Scott Durgin, and Matthew Scillitani were conducted January 19 and using a semi-structured format to allow for flexibility and depth with a live call transcribed with Rick Rosner followed by typed responses from Durgin and Scillitani.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewees.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatherhood-facts-opinions-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatherhood-facts-opinions-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Scott Durgin, Rick Rosner, and Matthew Scillitani on Fatherhood Facts and Opinions 1: First Salvo.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatherhood-facts-opinions-1.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 12, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview offers an insightful exploration of Tianxiang Shao’s personal and academic journey, conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The conversation delves into Shao’s family history, including his grandparents’ migration from rural Anhui to the provincial capital, Hefei, amidst challenging socio-political landscapes such as the 1960s famine and Cultural Revolution. Shao discusses his career aspirations in artificial intelligence, his perspectives on success, materialism, and the balance between introversion and social growth. The dialogue also touches on Shao’s childhood creativity, his passion for number theory, and his views on the interplay between human and artificial intelligence. Additionally, Shao shares his philosophical influences, including Albert Camus, and his engagement with Buddhist texts for personal peace. The interview highlights Shao’s multifaceted interests, resilience in personal challenges, and his commitment to balancing academic pursuits with diverse hobbies, providing a comprehensive understanding of his character and intellectual pursuits.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Buddhist Philosophy, Creativity, Cultural Revolution, Family Migration, Introversion, Materialism, Number Theory, Personal Resilience, Philosophical Influences, Social Growth, Success
Introduction
In this comprehensive interview conducted on January 12, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages with Tianxiang Shao, a promising young scholar and aspiring artificial intelligence algorithm engineer. Shao shares his deeply rooted family history, detailing his grandparents’ migration from rural Anhui to Hefei during a tumultuous period marked by famine and the Cultural Revolution. The conversation navigates through Shao’s academic aspirations, his introspective views on success and materialism, and his journey towards personal and social growth. Shao’s childhood creativity and passion for number theory emerge as significant themes, alongside his perspectives on the future of artificial intelligence relative to human intelligence. The interview also delves into Shao’s philosophical inclinations, influenced by Albert Camus, and his practices for achieving personal serenity through Buddhist texts. Additionally, Shao reflects on his hobbies and the importance of maintaining a balanced life amidst academic pursuits. This dialogue provides a nuanced portrait of Shao’s character, highlighting his resilience, intellectual curiosity, and thoughtful approach to both personal and professional development.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Tianxiang Shao
Section 1: Grandparents’ Origins and Migration
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are a lot of details to fill in, about your grandparents! Which countryside of Huangshan were they from?
Tianxiang Shao: My paternal grandparents were not from Huangshan. They were born in a village in central Anhui, near the provincial capital, Hefei. My maternal grandparents, however, were from Huangshan, and the area where they lived is now called Tunxi District.
Jacobsen: How did they travel from the countryside to the city, and which city?
Shao: Hefei, the capital city of Anhui Province. The journey was quite challenging in many ways. My grandparents were exceptionally talented and managed to rise above their circumstances through rigorous selection processes during a time when China was extremely poor.
Jacobsen: Were there any outstanding stories from this trip from the countryside to the city?
Shao: Yes, there were. Both of my grandparents came from very poor families. At that time, many rural families had a lot of children. In the 1960s, China experienced a devastating famine, followed by the Cultural Revolution starting in 1966. As a result, my grandparents didn’t receive a complete formal education. Instead, they relied heavily on self-study and the education available through society.
Despite these hardships, they managed to excel. What’s more, my grandmother brought her four siblings from the countryside to the city, and now all of them are leading good lives.
Section 2: Achieving Family Prosperity
Jacobsen: What did they do to make prosperity for their family?
Shao: They relied entirely on their own efforts and achieved prosperity through hard work and dedication.
Section 3: Career Aspirations and Academic Pursuits
Jacobsen: What careers have you aspired to attain achievement in the big city?
Shao: For me, at this stage, my academic pursuits are the most important.
As a child, I wanted to become an astrophysicist. Later, I aspired to be a mathematician. Now, considering my current field of study and where I can achieve success, becoming an artificial intelligence algorithm engineer seems to be the most fitting goal.
Jacobsen: What work have been the actual choices in the big city?
Shao: I’m still a student and don’t have a job yet.
Section 4: Defining Success and Views on Materialism
Jacobsen: How do you define success?
Shao: Doing what you love and staying committed to it for a lifetime—that is success.
Jacobsen: Is there a peculiarity to their materialism, as in something ore specific like a naturalism, or is more standardly defined materialism without religious belief?
Shao: I think it’s probably more of the latter.
Section 5: Dreams, Small Town Charm, and Serenity
Jacobsen: Huangshan makes you sound like a small town family dreamer like me.
Shao: Is that so? Haha. In fact, when I was a child, I always dreamed of big places. I loved visiting large office buildings, big shopping malls, and crowded areas. I enjoyed the excitement of exploring.
However, I gradually realized that small towns have their own charm. It wasn’t until I had lived in a big city for several years that I truly came to appreciate this.
Jacobsen: Do you feel that you carry some of that serenity with you?
Shao: Sometimes this serenity helps me block out the noise of the outside world, allowing me to think independently and explore the world on my own.
Section 6: Social Behavior and Personal Growth
Jacobsen: Do you feel more social now compared to before?
Shao: Haha, to be honest, I’ve always been a relatively introverted person and rarely participate in social activities unless necessary.
Jacobsen: When you didn’t get along well with peers, was this something to do with fights and misconduct, social awkwardness, or simply not fitting into the social groups?
Shao: That said, social skills are something that improve with experience. I believe my social skills and emotional intelligence are probably better now than they were five years ago.
Part of the reason was social awkwardness, and another part was my lack of participation in social activities. You know, many people enjoy going to bars, dancing, or making a lot of noise together, but I rarely go to those places because I don’t enjoy that kind of hustle and bustle.
I rarely argue with others or engage in inappropriate behavior. I find arguments to be too draining, and I prefer not to spend my time on unnecessary people or matters.
Section 7: Childhood Creativity and Storytelling
Jacobsen: What were the stories “inspired by a clock”?
Shao: Those are stories from my childhood. I’ve always been someone who loves to daydream. Back then, I was inspired by movies like Inception and Interstellar. Sometimes, I would even jot down those ideas in my notebooks.
I remember imagining stories about traveling to the past by altering a clock, or epic battles between beings from different galaxies through time fissures. These stories might seem absurd now, but at the time, I even created abstract drawings to go along with them and thoroughly enjoyed the process.
Section 8: Mathematics Competitions and Interests
Jacobsen: What kind of mathematics competitions, e.g., olympiads?
Shao: Yes, exactly the Olympiad, but I only participated in regional-level Olympiad competitions and some mathematical modeling contests.
Jacobsen: What area of math do you like the most?
Shao: Number theory. This probably explains why I felt so comfortable when I first started solving numerical reasoning problems. I remember the first time I took a proper high-range IQ test—it was Ivan Ivec’s Numerus. At that time, I had no clear understanding of the underlying logic or techniques, but I quickly submitted it and scored an IQ of 165.
I love numbers; I feel that each number tells a story. Number theory is so harmonious and beautiful. From a young age, I’ve used my knowledge of number theory to solve some problems.
Section 9: Perspectives on IQ Tests and Hobbies
Jacobsen: That’s a nuanced and healthy sense of self-consciousness on the latter personal note and a balanced view of high-range tests. I’m told by those who’ve spent a lot of time—e.g., Rick Rosner—on them that they’re almost a great challenge and stimulating because they are genuinely difficult and take 20, 50, 200 hours or more, sometimes. Those two factors of a speedy survey of the landscape and a rapid dig of the wells into the ground of a topic are pretty strong signs in youth. Outside of the math, was there anything in particular intriguing to you, apart from the academic work?
Shao: Thank you for the compliment! Let me first share my thoughts on high-range IQ tests. These tests are indeed very challenging, but there’s a mix of quality in the ones available today. So I usually approach them selectively. I treat them as a hobby—something to challenge myself with and enjoy the process rather than focus heavily on the results.
Many people ask me how much time I spend on these tests. I’ve actually calculated that my average time per test is about 6–8 hours. Occasionally, for particularly difficult tests that I enjoy, I spend longer. So far, only one numerical test has taken me over 50 hours: Mahir Wu’s N-World, which I consider the best pure numerical test out there.
As for my other interests, the truth is I have many! For example, I love playing table tennis, singing, and writing lyrics. I enjoy learning English and French, and I find great joy in reading. These are just a few examples.
These hobbies bring me happiness and balance alongside my academic work. I always recommend not letting academic work completely consume your life, as that can become exhausting.
Section 10: Artificial Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Jacobsen: Do you think computers will become far smarter than even the top geniuses in this or that country?
Shao: I don’t think so. In fact, my field of study is related to artificial intelligence, and my mentor and most of my peers share the same view.
Computers are undeniably intelligent. Since IBM’s Deep Blue defeated the genius chess player Garry Kasparov 28 years ago, stories of computers surpassing humans have become commonplace. In the future, it’s safe to say that for executing specific tasks, humans can be entirely replaced by machines.
However, the two most remarkable traits of humans are emotion and creativity, which are deeply interconnected. No matter how advanced AI becomes—be it OpenAI’s ChatGPT o1-pro, or some of Google’s cutting-edge AI models—it will never truly experience the nuances of human emotions like joy, sorrow, bitterness, and sweetness. Nor will it possess the profound creativity unique to humans.
Lastly, here’s an interesting wordplay: in English, “AI” (artificial intelligence) sounds identical to “爱” in Chinese pinyin, which means “love.” So far, I haven’t seen anyone use this as a theme for a puzzle, but it’s a fascinating coincidence. I often think love is the root of many great creations, and AI will never have the capacity to actively experience or comprehend the broader essence of “love.”
Section 11: Philosophical Influences and Beliefs
Jacobsen: What do you think of Camus?
Shao: Oh, he is a great French philosopher and writer. I’ve read many of his works before, and I highly recommend The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus. My worldview has been significantly influenced by his philosophical framework.
Jacobsen: Is there much different between algorithms and artificial intelligence, e.g., the latter as a higher-order kind of the former?
Shao: There is a distinction between algorithms and artificial intelligence, though they are deeply interconnected. Algorithms are the step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task or solve a problem. They are the building blocks of all computational processes, including artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, is a broader concept that refers to the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines. It encompasses not just algorithms but also data, training methods, and systems designed to learn, adapt, and make decisions. In a way, AI can be seen as a higher-order application of algorithms, where algorithms work together in complex ways to create learning and decision-making capabilities.
Jacobsen: What Buddhist passages help bring some calm and peace?
Shao: I recommend three texts, all of which are well-known in the Buddhist world: the Diamond Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, and the most famous one, the Heart Sutra.
The Heart Sutra is not very long—I memorized it completely when I was thirteen. Since then, whenever I feel restless, I recite it to calm myself down.
Jacobsen: Are there any neo-Daoist or Buddhist writers who capture a contemporary appreciation of Classical Chinese philosophy in a novel way?
Shao: One prominent example is Li Zehou, a contemporary philosopher who integrates Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism with modern thought, presenting a fresh perspective on Classical Chinese philosophy.
Jacobsen: What is the other 20% of your worldview not incorporated primarily by science?
Shao: I have a partially idealistic perspective. I believe in the existence of some transcendent spiritual beings, such as God, Buddhas, or deities mentioned in various religions.
Interestingly, I recently discussed this exact topic with Zolly Darko, a well-known author of high-range IQ tests, and I also used percentages to describe my worldview during that conversation.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by science?
Shao: It’s the conventional understanding of science as we know it.
Jacobsen: Subjectively, of those tests, which one felt the hardest and took the most time?
Shao: I’ve answered this question before—it’s Mahir Wu’s numerical test N-World. I spent nearly 60 hours on it and achieved a score close to full marks.
However, this year I’m planning to spend a similarly long time on one of Paul Cooijmans’ tests, aiming to submit it around my birthday. I won’t reveal more details for now, haha!
Jacobsen: Is the existentialism mentioned in ethical philosophy related to the reference to Albert Camus?
Shao: Yes, exactly.
To add an interesting note, Camus consistently denied being an existentialist philosopher, yet later philosophers widely regard him as one.
Jacobsen: What facets of Marxism make sense of social realities in China?
Shao: I’m sorry, but I prefer not to answer this question due to some political reasons. I hope you understand.
Section 12: Influences, Interests, and Personal Resilience
Jacobsen: What books have influenced you?
Shao: The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, Love in the Time of Choleraby Gabriel García Márquez, and Dream of the Red Chamber by the Chinese novelist Cao Xueqin.
Jacobsen: What music generates stronger feelings in you?
Shao: I must highly praise Lana Del Rey’s songs—she’s my favorite Western singer! Almost all of her songs resonate deeply with me.
In terms of musical forms, I love classical music, both Chinese and Western. I practiced violin as a child and later developed a strong appreciation for piano and violin compositions.
One genre I’ve always loved is Chinese traditional music (Guofeng). It brings me a sense of tranquility and is closely tied to China’s 5,000 years of history and culture. It feels almost like having a conversation with the ancients.
Jacobsen: Do we make a mistake in thinking the structured representation of letters on a page truly brings us in touch with the great minds of the past or merely in connection with the low-fidelity representation of what they had in mind?
Shao: I am more inclined to believe that it allows us to truly connect with great minds.
Jacobsen: How do you juxtapose the momentary feeling of the world as one with the realities of geopolitical strife?
Shao: I don’t particularly enjoy discussing too many politically related topics. I advocate for peace and hope that cultures from different countries can engage in equal exchanges and that people can support and help each other.
Jacobsen: Do you think the West’s primary concern among many of its populations with an Abrahamic afterlife is largely a waste of time and a cause of worry? We have large, anxious subpopulations.
Shao: Haha, I’m not very familiar with this topic. But from my perspective, I’ve never hoped for an afterlife—I only strive to live this life to the fullest.
Section 13: Closing Remarks
Jacobsen: How are you feeling since the last breakup?
Shao:Wow, at first, of course, I needed some time to adjust. But soon after, I got back on track because life and studies still needed to move forward.
I want to thank my good friends. I have several Chinese friends who supported me emotionally, including Tai Jing and Mahir Wu. My two friends from the Glia Society (you’re surely familiar with), Matthew Scillitani and Andrei Udriste, also comforted me. I’m grateful for their kindness!
I’m doing great now. I’m not even 21 yet, so there are plenty of opportunities and challenges ahead. I’ve grown to see matters like relationships in a much more mature way.
Lastly, thank you for this interview. I really enjoyed some of your questions, and I hope we meet again next time!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tianxiang.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Tianxiang Shao provides a comprehensive insight into Shao’s personal background, academic ambitions, and philosophical perspectives. Shao discusses his family’s migration from rural Anhui to Hefei during the tumultuous 1960s, highlighting his grandparents’ resilience and dedication amidst socio-political challenges like the famine and Cultural Revolution. This history underscores Shao’s determination and commitment to overcoming adversity, traits that have shaped his pursuit of a career in artificial intelligence and his passion for number theory. A significant portion of the discussion focuses on Shao’s introspective views on success and materialism, emphasizing the importance of following one’s passions and maintaining a lifelong commitment to personal and academic goals. His introspective nature and introversion are balanced by his ability to find serenity and engage in independent thought, which contribute to his intellectual growth and creativity. Additionally, Shao shares his perspectives on the unique aspects of human intelligence, such as emotion and creativity, which he believes AI cannot replicate, demonstrating his nuanced understanding of the interplay between technology and human cognition.
Methods
The interview with Tianxiang Shao was conducted on January 12, 2025, utilizing a semi-structured format sent via email. Scott Douglas Jacobsen prepared a series of open-ended questions that explored various facets of Shao’s life, including his family history, academic interests, philosophical beliefs, and personal resilience. Conducted virtually, the interview facilitated a comfortable environment for Shao to elaborate on topics of personal significance. The data gathered from the interview was analyzed thematically, identifying key motifs such as resilience, the balance between personal well-being and academic pursuits, and the influence of philosophical and spiritual practices on his life. This methodological framework ensured that the interview captured the depth and complexity of Shao’s experiences and perspectives, offering a nuanced understanding of his journey and future goals.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2). January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Family and Feelings (2) [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/shao-2
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 16, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview provides an in-depth exploration of Marco Ripà’s innovative contributions to discrete mathematics as an independent researcher and autodidact. Conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the conversation delves into Ripà’s dual focus on the modular properties of integer tetration and the development of minimal covering paths in high-dimensional grids, including his work on the Nine Dots Puzzle and generalized knight’s tours. Ripà discusses his fascination with iterated exponentiation, the concept of congruence speed, and his creation of over 100 sequences in the OEIS. The dialogue also covers Ripà’s formula for generating infinitely many c-th perfect powers whose constant congruence speed is also equal to c, for any positive integer c, his counterexamples to established theorems, and the potential applications of his research in cryptography and Ramsey theory. Additionally, Ripà outlines his future research directions, including collaborations on Euclidean knight’s tours and optimization problems in high-dimensional grids. The interview highlights Ripà’s unique approach to mathematics, characterized by innovative algorithms, constructive proofs, and a commitment to expanding the boundaries of combinatorics, number theory, and graph theory.
Keywords: Cryptography, Combinatorics, Congruence Speed, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, High-Dimensional Grids, Hypercubes, Integer Tetration, Knight’s Tour, Minimal Covering Paths, Nine Dots Puzzle, Number Theory, OEIS, Perfect Powers, Ramsey Theory
Introduction
In this comprehensive interview, conducted on January 16, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages with Marco Ripà, a self-taught mathematician and independent researcher renowned for his extensive work in discrete mathematics. Ripà has dedicated the past decade to exploring the modular properties of integer tetration and developing minimal covering paths in high-dimensional point grids, including innovative solutions to the classic Nine Dots Puzzle and its higher-dimensional generalizations. With over 100 sequences contributed to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) since 2011, Ripà has established himself as a prolific figure in combinatorics and number theory. The conversation examines Ripà’s early fascination with iterated exponentiation, his groundbreaking concepts such as congruence speed, and his contributions to the understanding of knight’s tours in multidimensional chessboards. Additionally, Ripà shares his insights into generating perfect powers with constant congruence speeds, his challenges to existing mathematical theorems, and the broader implications of his research. The interview also touches on Ripà’s future projects, including collaborations on Euclidean knight’s tours and optimization problems in high-dimensional grids, positioning him as a leading innovator in the evolving landscape of mathematical research.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Marco Ripà
Section 1: Introduction to Marco Ripà’s Research
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Over the past decade, you’ve pursued a unique dual-aspect focus. One on the modular properties of integer tetration or iterated exponentiation: how rightmost digits stabilize with growth in power tower and introduction of congruence speed. Another on minimal covering paths in high-dimensional point grids: emphasis on the 3×3 Nine Dots Puzzle with a clockwise-algorithm to minimize straight segments needed to cover all points. Other work has covered perfect powers, number-theoretic conjectures, and Hamiltonian paths in higher-dimensional hypercubes. So, what is your background interest as an independent researcher and autodidact in mathematics?
Section 2: Fascination with Iterated Exponentiation
Marco Ripà: That’s fundamentally correct. Given that, in the same period, I’ve contributed over 100 sequences published on the OEIS (180+ since 2011), e.g.:
We could synthetically say that my focus as an Independent Researcher (100% self-taught in mathematics) is discrete mathematics. For example, let us consider my preprint Shortest polygonal chains covering each planar square grid: the original proof of Lemma 2.1 in the Appendix transposes a graph theory problem into a Diophantine equation, which is discrete number theory in the end.
Research-level mathematics is incredibly challenging for an autodidact to navigate across multiple fields. I chose combinatorics and number theory because many open problems lie within these domains (as you can see by visiting Open Problem Garden) and are not as technically demanding as branches that merge algebra and topology. Additionally, I have been fascinated by integers since I was very young. So here I am.
Section 3: Personal Motivation Behind the Nine Dots Puzzle
Jacobsen: How did you become fascinated by iterated exponentiation?
Ripà: I grew up as a lonely child. My mom worked in her toy store, and I spent countless hours there, often bored with nothing to do. In the late ’80s, my best friend in that store was an old calculator with only the four basic arithmetic operations. I discovered that if I typed a number, pressed “×” twice, and then repeatedly hit “=”, the result grew rapidly, filling the entire screen. I was fascinated by the patterns in the final digits. About 25 years later, I discovered WolframAlpha and revisited this “game,” replacing “×” with “^”, thus exploring power towers instead of iterated multiplications. I suddenly noticed how the final digits stabilized, and then I realized that even the digit next to the leftmost stable digit exhibited non-random behavior, eventually entering a periodic loop. It reminded me of those days in my mom’s store.
Delving deeper into these patterns, I noticed that the number of new frozen digits after each iteration became constant at some point. This observation inspired me to study the topic more formally. I wrote a book in 2011 and eventually published the first peer-reviewed paper on the subject, titled “On the constant congruence speed of tetration”, in 2020.
Section 4: Exploring Integer Tetration and Modularity
Jacobsen: What is iterated exponentiation or modularity of integer tetration?
Ripà: I focused my work on integer power towers in radix-10, the familiar decimal numeral system (bring closure to the countless hours spent by that lonely child repeatedly pressing “×” followed by “=” over and over), where all the entries are the same given positive integer.
These are called “tetrations” (the next operation above exponentiation, also called hyper-4), where we raise a given number “a” to itself “b” times. When we write a^^b, we mean a^a^a^…^a, starting from the top and working downwards. For instance, 3^^3=3^3^3=3^(3^3)=3^(27)=7625597484987, instead of (3^3)^3=27^3=19683 (which is not particularly interesting from a mathematical point of view). The latter is sometimes referred to as “weak tetration”, but mathematicians like to make simple things complex, so why be surprised by that choice? (Just joking — we are serious thinkers, n’est-ce pas?).
Section 5: Minimal Covering Paths in High-Dimensional Grids
Jacobsen: What are minimal covering paths in high-dimensional point grids?
Ripà: Here we are in the field of combinatorics and graph theory. We are considering grids of points in a Euclidean k-dimensional space, so we can properly define those sets of n_1⋅n_2⋅⋅⋅n_k points through the Cartesian product {0,1,2,…,(n_1-1)}×{0,1,2,…,(n_2-1)}×⋯×{0,1,2,…,(n_k-1)}.
A minimal covering path for these grids is a simple polygonal chain with the minimum number of edges that fits all the given n_1⋅n_2⋅⋅⋅n_k points. If we visit any of those points more than once, we have a trail and not a path (paths are also trails, but the reverse is not generally true). We can solve the Nine Dots Problem by drawing a trail, but we can also find solutions that are paths…
Section 6: The Classical Nine Dots Problem Explained
Jacobsen: What is the classical Nine Dots Problem?
Ripà: In my previous answer, I assumed that everybody here already knows the rules of the most famous divergent-thinking puzzle ever — the one that inspired the “thinking outside the box” idiom (it appeared in Sam Loyd’s Encyclopedia of Puzzles, page 301, more than one century ago).
Basically, we can describe it mathematically as follows:
take the 3×3 grid {0,1,2}×{0,1,2} and then consider the square [0,3]×[0,3]. Now, try to join all the points by drawing a polygonal chain with no more than four edges, entirely contained inside the mentioned square [0,3]×[0,3].
Section 7: Generalizing the Nine Dots Problem to Higher Dimensions
Jacobsen: What drew you to it?
Ripà: My former girlfriend, at the time, challenged me to solve it. I found a solution in about 30 seconds; she thought I already knew the correct answer. She lived far from my house, so I spent the whole journey thinking about harder versions of the basic puzzle while the train was traveling back to Rome (many great ideas came during train journeys, from Mickey Mouse to Harry Potter… unfortunately, I wasn’t as lucky as Walt Disney or J. K. Rowling; and that’s all, folks).
Jacobsen: Why generalize it to higher dimensions?
Ripà: Because it is the most natural way to generalize the classic puzzle, as the planar extension to n_1×n_2 grids admits a trivial solution and was proved by others (even though I only discovered this a few years later).
Section 8: Key Insights into k-Dimensional Solutions
Jacobsen: How would you summarize the key insight behind your general k-dimensional solution to the Nine Dots Problem?
Ripà: Although I reached the solution independently by gradually reducing the gap between the proved upper and lower bounds, a fascinating pattern was revealed at the very end: the clockwise-algorithm simply returns the k-dimensional generalization of the solution to the classic Nine Dots Puzzle by Loyd. To understand the concept, let us take the k=3 case: the solution is a trail consisting of 13 line segments in space, but when you view it from the right perspective, you only see the Nine Dots Puzzle solution drawn on a piece of paper. Here’s a 4D video showing a few solutions returned by my clockwise-algorithm (up to 4 dimensions).
Jacobsen: What are the main mathematical steps or ideas in constructing that k-dimensional solution?
Ripà: The proof starts with establishing the trivial lower bound (n^k-1)/(n-1) for any n×n×⋯×n grid, where n is an integer greater than 2. If n=3 is given, then the lower bound becomes (3^k-1)/(3-1). Our goal is to find, for any given integer k>0, a constructive algorithm that produces trails with (3^k-1)/2 lines joining all the 3^k points of the set {0,1,2}^k in ℝ^k.
Section 10: Elegance in the Generalized Nine Dots Solution
Jacobsen: What is the most elegant part of the Nine Dots generalization?
Ripà: In my opinion, it is the way the solution for the k-1 case is used to produce a valid minimum-link trail for the k-dimensional case. When 3^(k -1)-1 points are left, the trail with 3^(k-1)/2 line segments that covers {0,1,2}^(k -1) is applied to the remaining unvisited points. In general, each solution produced by the clockwise-algorithm can be viewed from the right perspective to reveal a trail of 3^(k-1)/2 segments covering a {0,1,2}^(k-1) grid. For example, in a 3D solution of this kind, you will see Loyd’s expected solution for the classic Nine Dots Puzzle, and again, if we look at it the same way, we will see just a line segment fitting3 collinear points… which perfectly overlaps with the solution for the case k=1.
Moreover, as k grows, the number of different optimal trails increases. Each k-dimensional solution obtained by applying the clockwise-algorithm to an optimal trail for the (k-1)-dimensional configuration retains the same features of the input trail with 3^(k-1)/2 segments. This process extends in the same way as the four-line solution for the Nine Dots Problem generalizes to a line segment fitting the points {(0), (1), (2)}: it performs a 3-step circuit returning to the starting point, leaving exactly 3^1-1 collinear points, allowing a line segment to connect to the farthest grid point. Essentially, the solution replicates the line segment fitting {(0), (1), (2)}, and while we’re ignoring stretching, lengths are irrelevant for such mathematical problems where graph isomorphisms are the focus.
Section 11: Knight’s Tours on Higher-Dimensional Chessboards
Jacobsen: On the knight’s tours, what is the significance of proving there are infinitely many (Euclidean) tours on 2×2×⋯×2 chessboards?
Ripà: In the strictest sense, a knight’s tour on a given n×n×⋯×n, k-dimensional, chessboard requires moving a knight (following the chess knight move rule, whatever it entails) from a chosen cell back to the starting point (performing a closed knight’s tour), visiting all the other cells with the first n^(k-1) moves, without landing on the same cell more than once. Proving the existence of infinitely many Euclidean tours on such chessboards shows that this problem admits solutions under the natural generalization of the knight’s move to higher dimensions.
Section 12: Defining Knight’s Moves in Higher Dimensions
Jacobsen: What does a “knight’s move” mean in higher dimensions?
Ripà: Good question, thank you for asking. In my opinion, chess rules are determined by FIDE (The International Chess Federation), which has defined chess regulations for over 100 years, including the knight’s move. Article 3.6 of the FIDE Handbook, Section E/01 – Laws of Chess (see https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023), states: “The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal”.
This definition implies that the knight moves to a cell at an exact Euclidean distance of sqrt(5) units from the starting point. Here, a “unit” is the distance between the centers of two adjacent cells (e.g., A1 and A2, or C6 and D6, on the classic 8×8 chessboard).
This conclusion follows directly from pure logic: if we were to restrict knights in higher dimensions to only perform “L-shaped” moves, we would wrongly admit moves that violate the geometric constraint. For instance, consider a knight placed at the center of the 3×3×3 chessboard {0,1,2}×{0,1,2}×{0,1,2}. Based on the “rank, file, or diagonal” rule alone, one might claim that the knight could move from (1,1,1) to (1,2,2) since (1,2,2) does not lie on the same rank, file, or diagonal as (1,1,1), but it is trivial to point out that the Euclidean distance between (1,1,1) and (1,2,2) is sqrt(2), which is smaller than sqrt(5). By correctly interpreting the knight’s move as requiring an exact Euclidean distance of sqrt(5), we ensure that the concept logically extends to higher dimensions without inconsistencies.
Section 13: Counterexamples to Existing Theorems on Knight’s Tours
Jacobsen: How does your result provide a counterexample to Theorem 3 in the Erde et al. (2012) paper?
Ripà: If the knight’s move as defined by FIDE is correct, then the rule can be stated as: “The knight may move to any cell at a Euclidean distance of exactly sqrt(5) units from the starting cell”. Now, I have constructively proved the existence of closed knight’s tours on any 2×2×⋯×2 chessboard with at least 64 cells. More specifically, such tours exist on all 2×2×⋯×2 chessboard with 2^k cells for k>5 (k≥6 is a sufficient and necessary condition). Theorem 3 of the mentioned 2012 paper states that no closed knight’s tours exist on any n×n×⋯×n chessboard where n<3. However, my results provide constructive counterexamples under the assumption that FIDE’s definition of the knight’s move is authoritative.
The paper by Erde et al. does not explicitly define how a knight’s move generalizes to higher dimensions. It is likely the authors assumed L-shaped moves only, but this assumption no longer holds as k goes above 4. If someone disagrees with my construction, they must explain why a move from (1,1,1) to (0,0,1) would not be allowed according to FIDE’s definition of the knight’s move (by Article 3.6 of the Handbook, Section E/01).
Section 14: Distinct Approaches to Nine Dots and Knight’s Tour Problems
Jacobsen: Are you using a unifying technique or approach for the Nine Dots and Knight’s Tour problems?
Ripà: No, I am not. The approaches are entirely independent, relying on direct proofs. My constructive solution for the 3×3×⋯×3 Dots Problem (the clockwise-algorithm) does not describe a Hamiltonian cycle or even a path. Instead, it constructs minimum-link trails with (3^k-1)/2 edges joining all 3^k points.
Section 15: Generating Infinitely Many c-th Perfect Powers
Jacobsen: What is your formula for generating infinitely many c-th perfect powers?
Ripà: My formula not only generates infinitely many perfect powers of degree exactly c, but also ensures that these perfect powers are characterized by a constant congruence speed equal to c. This result is a particular case of what I consider the most elegant equation I have ever proved in number theory.
In detail, let V(…) denote the constant congruence speed of the argument, and let v_5(…) and v_2(…) indicate the number of times that 5 and 2 divide the argument. Let c, k, and t be positive integers such that t>min{v_2(c), v_5(c)}+1. Then, the formula V((10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=t holds for every pair (c, t), as k=1, 2, 3, … does not affect the result. The expression 10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1 is constructed to be a multiple of 3 but not divisible by 3^2, ensuring that (10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c is always a perfect power of degree exactly c. The congruence speed formula guarantees that V((10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=t, which remains valid when we assign t:=c. Finally, this leads to V((10^(k+c)+10^(c-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=c, providing infinitely many c-th perfect powers with the desired properties.
Section 16: Ensuring Constant Congruence Speed in Perfect Powers
Jacobsen: How does your formula ensure a constant congruence speed rather than a variable congruence speed for these c-th powers?
Ripà: The proof involves some technical special cases that we can safely omit here for simplicity. Let t>min{v_2(c), v_5(c)}+1 and assume c>1. The constant congruence speed of any positive integer greater than 1 and not a multiple of 10 is itself a positive integer. In collaboration with Luca Onnis, I derived the general formula to compute the constant congruence speed of any such tetration base. This formula is provided as Equation (3) in Number of stable digits of any integer tetration.
We observe that 10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1 is a multiple of 3 (as the sum of its digits is 3) but not divisible by 3^2. Additionally, it ends 01. Therefore, we only need to consider the first line of Equation (3). Then, using the Lifting The Exponent (LTE) lemma, I proved Lemma 2 in On the relation between perfect powers and tetration frozen digits, from which Theorem 2 follows. These results are sufficient to prove the general equation: V((10^(k+t)+10^t+1)^c)=t+min{v_2(c), v_5(c)}.
We can safely replace t with t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)} (as t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)}≥2 by hypothesis).
This gives:
V((10^(k+t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=t. Since the value of the positive integer k does not affect the result, we simplify this to: V((10^(k+t)+10^(t-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=t.
Finally, when t:=c is given, we have V((10^(k+c)+10^(c-min{v_2(c), v_5(c)})+1)^c)=c, as c≥min{v_2(c), v_5(5)}+2 holds for any c>1) (Q.E.D.).
Section 17: Potential Applications Beyond Pure Mathematics
Jacobsen: Do you see any potential applications or implications of these formulas and proofs outside of pure mathematics?
Ripà: It’s hard to say definitively, but I’ve outlined a few ideas in the introduction of “On the relation between perfect powers and tetration frozen digits”. One potential application lies in cryptography. For example, I could challenge you to the following game:
Me: Choose a positive integer greater than 1 and not ending in 0, as large as you wish.
You: I choose “x”.
Me: Here’s a tetration base whose constant congruence speed is not (yet) stable at height x and whose congruence speed never matches its constant value at heights 1 to x.
For instance, if you choose x=103, I could construct a base such as:
[Ed. Numeric sequence immediately below should be taken as one line or complete unseparated sequence.]
which can then generate infinitely many tetration bases with similar properties.
Moreover, the congruence speed formula can solve a particular class of problems related to Ramsey theory. For instance, I used it to answer an open question asking to determine how many iterations of Hensel’s (lifting) lemma you can do in order to keep getting one more (new) ending digit of Graham’s number at a time… it is sufficient to invoke the first Lemma of my old paper “On the constant congruence speed of tetration”, but I proved the result by using the general formula. The result shows that Graham’s number, G, has exactly slog_3(G)-1 stable digits, where slog is the super-logarithm.
Section 18: Approaches to Identifying Counterexamples
Jacobsen: How do you typically approach “established” theorems or conjectures with an eye to finding counterexamples?
Ripà: I usually attempt to find counterexamples to any mathematical result I read, as a way to test my own understanding and reading comprehension. However, this was not the case with the mentioned Erde’s paper. At that time, I was working on a lengthy preprint about metric spaces in generalized chess (Metric spaces in chess and international chess pieces graph diameters), which required a deeper analysis of how chess pieces move can be defined.
Actually, the strictest logical solution I derived was the Euclidean knight definition and, you know, chess knights do not understand advanced mathematics, nor can they read published theorems… they simply move around any k-dimensional 2×2×⋯×2 grid as long as k>5, eventually returning to their starting cell aftere their (2^k)-th move, each jump spanning sqrt(5) chessboard units. Whether or not this constitutes counterexample to the mentioned theorem depends on the assumptions we make at the outset. In my humble opinion, if a mathematical object is not rigorously defined, theorems built upon it become vulnerable to such ambiguities. To clarify further, I believe even Euler’s concept of a knight aligned with the common understanding: one restricted to performing L-shaped moves in any number of dimensions.
Section 19: Future Directions and Research Expansions
Jacobsen: What directions or expansions do you envision for each of these results?
Ripà: Currently, Gabriele Di Pietro (a mathematics teacher) and I are further generalizing my initial breakthrough on Euclidean knight’s tours, extending the results to other fairy chess leapers (chess pieces with non-standard movement patterns that moves directly to a square a fixed distance away). These developments are detailed in the preprint On the existence of Hamiltonian cycles in hypercubes.
Regarding optimization problems on regular grids, another independent Italian researcher is working to improve the bounds I provided for the general n_1×n_2×⋯×n_k points configurations. Meanwhile, I have summarized the best current results for n×n×⋯×n grids in the preprint General conjecture on the optimal covering trails for any 𝑘 -dimensional cubic lattice (v3). In Optimal cycles enclosing all the nodes of a k-dimensional hypercube (2022), Roberto Rinaldi and I have also proved the exact solution for the (k-dimensional) 2×2×⋯×2 case, showing that 3⋅2^(k-2) links are sufficient to cover the grid with a cycle (not just a trail, circuit, or path). However, the 4×4×⋯×4 problem is still open, for any k≥3 (I’ve only been able to prove that the 4×4×4 grid can be covered with a path consisting of 23 links, while no trail with less than 21 links can do the same).
Lastly, Gabriele and I plan to develop a more compact notation to express the congruence speed (not only its constant value) and the phase shift (not only its asymptotic value) of any integer, including multiples of 10. Although I have already published preprints with all the necessary formulae, this new notation will improve readability and facilitate future research on the topic.
To encourage recreational exploration of this area, I have provided Twelve Python Programs to Help Readers Test Peculiar Properties of Integer Tetration that allow anyone to experiment with congruence speed and phase shift. As part of this effort, I also issued a challenge to my YouTube followers to solve at least three out of five problems within 2.5 hours. None of the participants managed to pass the test on January 3, 2025. For reference, the full text of the challenge and solutions can be found here: Five Hard Problems with a Simple Solution).
Section 20: Influence on Combinatorics, Number Theory, and Geometry
Jacobsen: How do you see your work influencing other areas of combinatorics, number theory, or geometry?
Ripà: As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the discovery of the constancy of the congruence speed of tetration (and the related congruence speed formula) holds great untapped potential. It could also find applications in areas such as Ramsey theory. Exploring congruence speed-related problems is a fascinating endeavor, particularly for individuals with strong analytical skills and a high level of pattern recognition. I coined the term “speed” because the height of the tetration can be interpreted as time, and the total number of stable digits as the “distance” traveled during the first “b” iterations. Consequently, the congruence speed maps the rate of frozen digits’ growth: from height 1 to 2, from height 2 to 3, and so forth. At certain points, depending on the base of tetration under consideration, this value stabilizes at the constant congruence speed value, as long as the given tetration base doesn’t end in 0.
Interestingly, the hyperoperator pentation — which is to tetration what tetration is to exponentiation — might similarly exhibit a constant “congruence acceleration” (assuming an integer pentation base greater than 1 and not divisible by 10). Keeping the focus on the skills that led me to study tetration’s last digits, the classic Nine Dots Puzzle’s extension into three dimensions could serve as a useful psychometric tool for testing advanced pattern recognition. I’ve already created a similar challenge focused on two-dimensional grids, which I believe is well-suited for individuals with IQs in the 140+ (S.D. 15) range. You can find it here: DOTS Rev – A Real IQ Challenge for the High Range. Enjoy!
Section 21: Guidance for Researchers Building on Ripà’s Findings
Jacobsen: Finally, if someone wanted to explore or build upon your findings, where would you recommend they begin?
Ripà: It’s a personal choice, but my advice is to start with our more accessible papers on each topic. Here’s a roadmap:
Congruence speed and tetration:
Although the core paper is “The congruence speed formula”, since you need it to prove the results stated in “Number of stable digits of any integer tetration”, I suggest to begin from the latter. You may skip the complex proof involving the homomorphism with the commutative ring of 10-adic integers, as it delves into advanced topics like the 15 10-adic solutions of the fundamental fifth-degree equationy^5=y.
This introduces the congruence speed formula as Equations (3) and (16) and provides results that are easier to grasp. Then, read “Graham’s number stable digits: an exact solution”, which is far easier than “On the relation between perfect powers and tetration frozen digits”. Make sure to understand “Number of stable digits of any integer tetration” first, as it lays the groundwork.
For a deeper dive, explore Sections 3 and 4 of “The congruence speed formula”. Section 4, which proves the existence of infinitely many prime numbers characterized by any positive constant congruence speed by invoking the powerful Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions, is particularly fascinating. Finally, for the congruence speed formula of all the bases that are multiples of 10, check out the short and accessible Congruence speed of tetration bases ending with 0.
Optimization problems on regular grids:
Start with “Minimum-Link Covering Trails for any Hypercubic Lattice” (version 5) for lower bounds and “General conjecture on the optimal covering trails for any 𝑘-dimensional cubic lattice” for upper bounds.
For open research lines, “General uncrossing covering paths inside the axis-aligned bounding box” is an excellent starting point. It introduces new optimization problems and opens avenues to create many OEIS sequences. This paper is the culmination of a trilogy that began with “Solving the 106 years old 3^k points problem with the clockwise-algorithm”.
Euclidean knight’s tours and generalized mulitidimensional chess pieces:
Begin with the concise and easy-to-follow “Proving the existence of Euclidean knight’s tours on n×n×⋯×n chessboards for n<4”.
Next, explore “Metric spaces in chess and international chess pieces graph diameters”, which delves into the complexities of generalizing chess piece movements on k-dimensional chessboards. This paper provides a comprehensive perspective on k-pieces (i.e., chess pieces operating on k-dimensional n×n×⋯×n chessboards in Euclidean space). To round out your understanding, consider “On the existence of Hamiltonian cycles in hypercubes”, a shorter paper that expands the Euclidean knight’s tour concept to all the others fairy chess leapers, where the knight represents the mere (1, 2)-leaper and the paper considers each (a, b)-leaper for any pair of positive integers a≥0 and b>1.
These papers provide a solid foundation while highlighting many open problems and research directions for anyone eager to explore or expand on these findings.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marco.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Marco Ripà offers an in-depth exploration of Ripà’s pioneering work in discrete mathematics, particularly focusing on integer tetration, minimal covering paths in high-dimensional grids, and advanced number theory. As an independent researcher and autodidact, Ripà has made significant contributions without formal academic affiliations, demonstrating exceptional creativity and analytical prowess. A central theme of the discussion is Ripà’s fascination with iterated exponentiation and the stabilization of rightmost digits in power towers. His work on congruence speed and minimal covering paths highlights his commitment to uncovering fundamental principles that address complex combinatorial problems. Ripà’s innovative approaches to classical puzzles, such as the Nine Dots Problem, and his extensions into higher dimensions showcase his ability to blend creativity with rigorous mathematical analysis.
Additionally, Ripà challenges existing theorems by providing constructive counterexamples in the realm of knight’s tours on higher-dimensional chessboards, illustrating his capacity to question and refine established mathematical concepts. The interview also touches upon the potential applications of his research in fields like cryptography and Ramsey theory, indicating a forward-thinking approach that seeks to bridge pure mathematics with practical applications. Ripà’s prolific contributions to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) and his efforts to engage the mathematical community through challenges and educational resources further emphasize his dedication to fostering mathematical curiosity and problem-solving skills. Overall, the discussion underscores Marco Ripà’s role as a visionary in discrete mathematics, whose independent research pushes the boundaries of combinatorics and number theory.
Methods
The interview with Marco Ripà from January 16, 2025, using a semi-structured format to allow for a comprehensive and flexible dialogue. Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the interviewer, prepared a series of targeted questions that covered various aspects of Ripà’s research, personal motivations, and future aspirations. The conversation took place virtually.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Ripà, M., On the relation between perfect powers and tetration frozen digits, Journal of AppliedMath (eISSN: 2972-4805), Vol. 2 (2024), No. 5, 1771.
Ripà, M., Proving the existence of Euclidean knight’s tours on n × n × ⸱⸱⸱ × n chessboard for n < 4, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 30 (2024), No. 1, pp. 20–33.
Ripà, M. and Onnis, L., Number of stable digits of any integer tetration, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 28 (2022), No. 3, pp. 441–457.
Ripà, M., The congruence speed formula, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 27 (2021), No. 4, pp. 43–61.
Ripà, M., General uncrossing covering paths inside the axis-aligned bounding box, Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications (ISSN: 2621-6019), Vol. 4 (2021), No. 2, pp. 154–166.
Ripà, M., Reducing the Clockwise-Algorithm to k length classes, Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications(ISSN: 2621-6019), Vol. 4 (2021), No. 1, pp. 61–68.
Ripà, M., Solving the 106 years old 3^k problem with the clockwise-algorithm, Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications (ISSN: 2621-6019), Vol. 3 (2020), No. 2, pp. 84–97.
Ripà, M., On the constant congruence speed of tetration, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN:1310-5132), Vol. 26 (2020), No. 3, pp. 245-260.
Ripà, M., Covering paths in hypercubes: Conjecture about link length bounded from below, International Journal of Mathematical Archive (IJMA) (ISSN: 2229-5046), Vol. 10 (2019), No. 8, pp. 36–38.
Ripà, M., The 3 × 3 × ⋅⋅⋅ × 3 Points Problem solution, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 25 (2019), No. 2, pp. 68–75.
Ripà, M., The n × n × n Points Problem optimal solution, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN:1310-5132), Vol. 22 (2016), No. 2, pp. 36–43.
Ripà, M., Tessaro, G., and Forti, A., Quanti numeri primi in 100 interi consecutivi?, Matematicamente.it Magazine (ISSN:2035-0449), Vol. 25 (2015), pp. 37–40.
Ripà, M., The Rectangular Spiral or the n_1 × n_2 × ⋅⋅⋅ × n_k Points Problem, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 20 (2014), No. 1, pp. 59–71. [A short and up-to-date version of the original NNTDM paper has been accepted by Optimization Online in August 2024, and is available at: https://optimization-online.org/?p=27442].
Ripà, M. and Morelli, G., Retro-analytical Reasoning IQ Tests for the High Range, Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161), Vol. 4 (2013), No. 4, pp. 309–320.
Ripà, M. and Dalmasso, E., Patterns Related to the Smarandache Circular Sequence Primality Problem, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (ISSN: 1310-5132), Vol. 18 (2012), No. 1, pp. 29–48.
Ripà, M., Identifying gifted children and dyslexia early diagnosis: risk of cheating on IQ tests, Conference Proceeding, 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Dubai, July 17, 2012.
Ripà, M., Differentiating features of gifted children and dealing with IQ societies, Conference Proceeding, 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Dubai, July 15, 2012.
Other Publications, Preprints, and Informative Articles
Jacobsen S.D. and Ripà, M., An Interview with Marco Ripà (Part Three), In-Sight Publishing (ISSN 2369-6885), Vol. 10.A, May 2016.
Jacobsen S.D. and Ripà, M., An Interview with Marco Ripà (Part Two), In-Sight Publishing (ISSN 2369-6885), Vol. 10.A, Feb. 2016.
Jacobsen S.D. and Ripà, M., An Interview with Marco Ripà (Part One), In-Sight Publishing (ISSN 2369-6885), Vol. 10.A, Jan. 2016.
Ripà, M., Twelve Python Programs to Help Readers Test Peculiar Properties of Integer Tetration, Zenodo, December 2024. Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/14544793.
Ripà, M., Graham’s number stable digits: an exact solution, arXiv [math.GM], October 2024. Available at:https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00015.
Di Pietro, G. and Ripà, M., On the existence of Hamiltonian cycles in hypercubes, arXiv [math.CO], September 2024. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03073.
Di Pietro, G. and Ripà, M., Euclidean Tours in Fairy Chess, arXiv [math.GM], June 2024. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07903.
Ripà, M., General conjecture on the optimal covering trails for any k-dimensional cubic lattice, IQ Nexus Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 55–61. Available at:https://iqnexus.org/2024/02/28/iqnj-v16-n1/.
Ripà, M., Congruence speed of tetration bases ending with 0, arXiv [math.NT], February 2024. Available at:https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07929.
Ripà, M., Metric spaces in chess and international chess pieces graph diameters, arXiv [math.HO], November 2023. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00016.
Rinaldi R. and Ripà, M., Optimal cycles enclosing all the nodes of a k-dimensional hypercube, arXiv [math.CO], December 2022. Available at:https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11216.
Ripà, M., Shortest polygonal chains covering each planar square grid, arXiv [math.CO], July 2022. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08708.
Ripà, M., Minimum-Link Covering Trails for any Hypercubic Lattice, arXiv [math.GM], June 2022. Available at:https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01699.
Ripà, M., On some open problems concerning perfect powers, IQ Nexus Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 41–48. Available at: https://iqnexus.org/2024/02/13/iqnj-v14-n2/.
Ripà, M., Very unbalanced Chess Positions, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN: 2369-6885), Vol. 22.B, April 2020.
Ripà, M., Solving the n_1 × n_2 × n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN: 2369-6885), Vol. 22.B, Feb. 2020. [An up-to-date version of the original paper has been accepted by Optimization Online in June 2022, Updated in December 2024, and is available at: https://optimization-online.org/2022/06/8958/].
Ripà, M., Ricorsività delle cifre di particolari classi di interi, Rudi Mathematici – Bookshelf, RMBSH-027.
Ripà, M., Una curiosa proprietà, Rudi Mathematici – Bookshelf, RMBSH-026.
Ripà, M., Divisibilità per 3 degli elementi di alcune sequenze numeriche, Rudi Mathematici – Bookshelf, RMBSH-020.
Ripà, M., 2048 game: massimo punteggio, Matematicamente.it – Giochi e gare – Gioca con la matematica, No. 1, June 2014.
Ripà, M., Strani calcoli ispirati dal racconto di J. L. Borges ‘La biblioteca di Babele’, Matematicamente.it – Cultura –Matematica curiosa, No. 7, Nov. 2010.
Published Books
1729 il Numero di Mr. 17-29, Edizioni Eracle/Narrativa, Napoli, 2014 (ISBN: 978-8867430574).
Retro-analytical Reasoning IQ Tests for the High Range, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, 2013 (ISBN: 978-3659437649).
Congetture su Interrogativi Inediti: tra Speculazioni, Voli Pindarici e Riflessioni Spicciole, Narcissus,Ebook, 2012 (ISBN: 978-8863699463).
La Strana Coda della Serie n^n^…^n, UNI Service, Trento, 2011 (ISBN: 978-8861787896).
Selected Public Debates and Prizes
Credited as the coauthor of the first dynamic spatial IQ tests, equally normed and automatically generated by software, in Scott Jacobsen’s article “On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ”, published online in November 2024 (available at: https://in-sightpublishing.com/2024/11/22/high-range-26/).
Online speaker at the 10thInternational Aegean Congress on Innovation Technologies & Engineering, October 5–7, 2024, Izmir, Turkey, presenting “Graham’s number stable digits: an exact result”.
Guest speaker at the national convention Gifted Education e Inclusione: miti, mode e misconcezioni, February 7, 2019, Lecce, Italy, discussing his school years as a gifted child.
In January 2016 was interviewed as GOTY winner by Scott D. Jacobsen for the In-Sight Publishing.
In June 2015, was interviewed about WIQF by the Korean TV ‘SBS’, The Genius Scouters.
In March 2015, he presented his latest novel at the public library F. Basaglia in Rome.
In March 2014 participated in the prime-time TV quiz Avanti un Altro!
Elected as “Genius of the Year 2014 – Europe” by members of the World Genius Directory and by the World Intelligence Network Executive Committee, mainly for his fundamental contribution to the creation of the first dynamic IQ tests (ENNDT and ENSDT).
In April 2013, he was hosted by the television program Romanzo Familiare as a “former gifted child” talking about acceleration, curriculum enrichment, and curricular compacting.
Guest speaker at the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, July 14–18, 2012, Dubai, U.A.E., presenting two papers entitled “Identifying Gifted Children and Dyslexia Early Diagnosis: Risk of Cheating on IQ Tests” and “Differentiating Features of Gifted Children and Dealing with High IQ Societies”.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4). January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Breaking Bread with Marco Ripà on Iterated Exponentiation and the Nine Dots Problem (4) [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/ripà-4
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 8, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview provides an in-depth exploration of Jena Jake’s multifaceted expertise as a therapist, certified coach, author, and speaker, with a particular emphasis on self-empowerment, relationships, and communication. Conducted on January 8, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages with Jena to uncover her specialized approach in assisting shy and neurodivergent individuals in navigating the complexities of dating and relationships. The conversation delves into Jena’s tailored programs, such as the “Quiet Power Method,” which focus on enhancing dating skills, boosting confidence, and overcoming self-limiting beliefs through personalized coaching and practical skill-building exercises. Additionally, Jena discusses the negative impact of social media on self-esteem and relationship perceptions, offering strategies to counteract these effects. The interview also highlights Jena’s “Soul Streaker Podcast,” which explores spirituality and personal growth, reflecting her holistic approach to self-love and transformation. As a parent of an autistic child, Jena shares valuable insights into the strengths and lessons learned from her parenting journey, emphasizing resilience, acceptance, and personal growth. The dialogue underscores the importance of personalized coaching, the integration of spiritual principles in therapy, and the provision of diverse resources to support individuals in their pursuit of meaningful and fulfilling relationships.
Keywords: Autism Parenting, Communication Skills, Confidence Building, Dating Coaching, Neurodivergent Individuals, Personalized Coaching, Quiet Power Method, Relationships, Self-Empowerment, Self-Love, Shyness, Social Anxiety, Soul Streaker Podcast, Spiritual Growth
Introduction
In this comprehensive interview conducted on January 8, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages in a meaningful conversation with Jena Jake, a distinguished therapist, certified coach, author, and speaker renowned for her expertise in self-empowerment, relationships, and communication. Jena specializes in assisting shy and neurodivergent individuals, guiding them through the challenges of dating and building meaningful relationships. She offers tailored programs like the “Quiet Power Method,” which focuses on boosting confidence and overcoming self-limiting beliefs through practical exercises such as scriptwriting and role-playing. Jena also addresses the negative impacts of social media on self-esteem and relationships, providing strategies to foster authentic self-presentation and self-acceptance. Additionally, she hosts the “Soul Streaker Podcast,” which explores spirituality and personal growth, reflecting her holistic approach to therapy and coaching. As a parent of an autistic child, Jena shares insights into the personal growth and resilience gained from her parenting journey, emphasizing acceptance and compassion.
The interview further highlights Jena’s diverse offerings, including personalized coaching packages, online courses, and published works like “Your Daily Growth Partner” journal and “The Purpose” children’s book. Her comprehensive approach combines personalized coaching, spiritual integration, and practical strategies to empower individuals in achieving fulfilling relationships and personal growth.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Jena Jake
Section 1: Introduction and Client Engagement
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Jake. Jena is a therapist, certified coach, author, and speaker specializing in self-empowerment, relationships, and communication. You typically focus on assisting individuals who might be neurodivergent or shy regarding relationships or dating. How do you engage people who are neurodivergent or shy in a therapeutic setting? What is the common list of issues for which they seek help?
Jena Jake: They usually seek help with relationships and dating. They want assistance with their dating profiles, advice on how to meet potential partners, ways to boost their confidence, and guidance on navigating relationships. Even in a relationship, they often make choices that do not serve the relationship and create more challenges. They want to know how to address and rectify these issues.
Section 2: Therapeutic Approach and Session Structure
Jacobsen: How long do you typically work with shy people? Do you set a goal at the beginning of the therapeutic sessions and then work toward achieving that goal? What is the usual range of time people spend working with you?
Jake: First of all, I want to say I’m so excited to be here. Thank you for having me. It depends. Sometimes, it’s three sessions. Other times, they sign on for additional sessions or commit to a specific program lasting a month or two, depending on their needs. I tailor my approach to each client. My website’s options are now shorter because I am working on developing a group class, but I am happy to work with someone long-term if needed. On average, most people do about six to ten sessions.
Jacobsen: What is the development process like? When clients come to you, where do they start, and what progress do they make when they finish? What skills do they develop and integrate into their lives?
Jake: I had a client recently whose homework was to practice improving his social interactions. He felt like he had no “dating game” at all. I suggested he start by practicing low-pressure conversations—talking to a barista, for example, or someone at the grocery store. He did, and he said it felt like a weight was lifted off his shoulders. He had convinced himself that nobody wanted to talk to him and that he was bothering people. Through real-world experience, he quickly realized that these were just stories he had made up. It was not true at all; people were engaging with him. Using my teaching methods, clients tend to heal and grow relatively quickly. That’s my job, after all—to help them build confidence and move forward independently.
Section 3: Overcoming Social Anxiety and Building Confidence
Jacobsen: Is the primary issue the negative stories they tell themselves, or are there deeper, underlying physiological issues like deeply rooted anxiety?
Jake: Some clients do have deeply rooted social anxiety, and those cases require more care and time compared to someone who is simply shy and not dealing with significant anxiety. It depends on the individual. The average client I work with tends to have some social anxiety, but it’s usually more on the timid side. Often, they have internalized negative stories about themselves or others. It is incredibly freeing once they recognize that these stories are not true.
Jacobsen: Do people who have anxiety have comorbidities when they come to you as well? Or is it typically that when they have anxiety, that’s the only issue they are dealing with?
Jake: Sometimes they have other types of anxiety or depression, things like that. But that gets into my therapeutic background, and this is more coaching. So those kinds of issues, I tend to leave to their therapist. I try to focus more on the story they’re telling themselves, the actual implementation of their dating profile, getting them out there, discussing possibilities they might not be considering, and dissolving the unhelpful stories they’ve created. So, yes, they sometimes have those issues, but I feel those things are better suited for someone specifically trained in that area. Not that I’m not trained to deal with them, but that’s not the focus of my work with these individuals.
Section 4: Practical Coaching Techniques and the Quiet Power Method
Jacobsen: When coaching people, how do you convey some of these lessons in the Shy Guy Whisperer podcast?
Jake: In the podcast, I discuss topics like “Women in the Wild.” I give practical tips on where to meet women and provide opening lines. It’s a lot of role-playing and practical scriptwriting. It’s not just a to-do list; it’s a “to-done” list. When we work together, I’m not leaving you hanging—I sit, write scripts, and role-play with you. This prepares you to go out and feel comfortable because your brain is already familiar with it. We’ve practiced it extensively together—sometimes even at nauseam—so you know exactly what to do.
These are the things I talk about on the podcast. Still, I focus on implementing these lessons together when working one-on-one with someone. Initially, there’s a bit of hand-holding, but very quickly, clients develop amazing confidence. The secret is that many qualities shy guys have are ones women love. Women appreciate someone who is attentive, great with details, caring, and a good listener.
It’s often these false ideas about romance, masculinity, or what women want—fueled by movies or media—that hold them back. Once they see, “Oh, wow, I have unique and attractive qualities,” they get excited. They realize they don’t need to appeal to five women; they need to find one who appreciates them.
Section 5: Impact of Social Media on Self-Esteem
Jacobsen: Do you think social media use makes shyness on an individual level worse or better?
Jake: Probably worse. People go on social media, and it’s all an illusion. Everyone puts their best selves forward on social media. Any insecurity someone has gets amplified because their reticular activating system will focus on what they lack. They might see “Johnny” with a girl and think, “That’ll never be me.” They create stories about how great Johnny is and all the things Johnny has that they don’t.
The problem with social media is that it sets people up to fail. It reinforces unhelpful comparisons and can make individuals feel worse about themselves.
Jacobsen: And with the Quiet Power Method course, which is offered online and runs for four weeks, how do you teach mastering relationships, approaching women, and understanding what women want? You touched on that a little earlier, but in more specific terms, what traits are women looking for? How do you approach these topics and help men master these skills to build attractiveness and strong relationships?
Jake: Right. Everyone has their best self, the person they truly are. When you start focusing on the idea that 80% of you are already amazing and 20% need work, the goal becomes emphasizing the 80% without downplaying the 20%. The person you’re looking for also has their own 80/20 dynamic.
When you find your best self, visualize it, and keep that image in front of you, you realize that’s truly who you are. You’re an amazing being, and someone out there is looking for you—exactly you. Everyone else is already taken, so you might as well embrace yourself.
Once I can help someone build their confidence, we create a “confidence list.” Within the course, they know exactly what they’re good at, their gifts, how they’ve served or helped others, and how to shine their light brightly. They begin to see how unique they are and how the attributes I mentioned earlier—like attentiveness, kindness, and thoughtfulness—are deeply appreciated by women.
Then, we practice and write scripts around these ideas. The process comes alive and takes on a life of its own. It’s amazing to witness their transformation. They move from being stuck in a negative story about themselves to realizing they can let that go and embrace a new, positive reality.
Jacobsen: When you’re building these new scripts, how do you structure them?
Jake: That depends on the person and what feels authentic to them. For example, I had a session with a client last night, during which we worked on his dating profile. He liked what we wrote, but it didn’t feel like him. So I told him, “Let’s take another crack at it, and we’ll refine it next week.”
For conversations, I suggest using open-ended questions with a barista, such as, “Who’s your favourite customer? Why are they your favourite customer? What’s the most popular drink here?” These kinds of questions invite others to talk and open up.
Once clients see where I’m going with this, they start coming up with their questions and things they want to share. Initially, they might not have the courage to say these things. Still, with practice, they realize that people are genuinely interested in them. They start thinking, “I’m an interesting person!”
From there, I guide them. I might say, “That’s great!” or “Women don’t usually want to hear too much about that.” But ultimately, the conversation has to feel natural to them. I’m just tweaking and refining what they’ve already created. It has to come from their authentic self—I can’t be Cyrano de Bergerac in the background.
Section 6: Soul Streaker Podcast and Spiritual Integration
Jacobsen: You’ve also developed the Soulstreaker Podcast, which has been around longer and focuses on spirituality and similar topics. What is that philosophy, and how does it feel more personally connected to you?
Jake: I love spirituality, and I believe we are all spirits having a human experience. I am also a mother of a child with autism, so lately, I have been integrating the spirituality of autism into my work. However, the Soulstreaker Podcast has primarily been a deeply personal spiritual project.
I’ve had many mediums and spiritual energy experts on the podcast, and it’s truly a labour of love. It’s for people interested in energy, the paranormal, or the idea that we are more than just physical beings. I focus on collective energy—the wave rather than the matter. It’s about exploring the energetic and spiritual aspects of life.
Jacobsen: Are there certain philosophical or spiritual traditions this podcast builds upon? For instance, does it stem from one particular branch of thought, or is it more syncretic and eclectic?
Jake: It’s more eclectic. Spirituality is just who I am. I can’t not be spiritual—it’s integral to my being. The podcast is an expression of the ideas and things I find fascinating. I hope others enjoy it as much as I do.
The themes often revolve around love, self-love, spiritual growth, self-improvement, and personal experiences viewed through a spiritual lens. It’s about sharing what resonates with me and offering insights to inspire others.
Jacobsen: When we talk about self-love, what do we mean by it?
Jake: Self-love involves loving the parts of yourself that feel unlovable. But it’s also about recognizing that you are love. If you are inherently love, self-love is naturally included in that understanding—it’s who you are. You can’t separate yourself from self-love because it’s intrinsic to your being.
It becomes even more profound when we start exploring what the “self” truly is. Are you your mind? Your body? Or is your ego’s perception of who you are an illusion? These aspects of self can change—your thoughts, personality, or even your entire reality can shift.
Transformation happens when you change your thoughts or personality, but there’s always a witness, a knower, observing these changes. That’s who we truly are—an unchanging, loving intelligence. As Joe Dispenza says, you’re “nobody, nowhere, no time.” You’re an energy that is formless but full of love and intelligence. In this sense, we are everything and nothing simultaneously.
Jacobsen: Do you bring these ideas into your coaching and therapy process?
Jake: Yes, I do. Even if I try not to, it naturally sneaks in because it’s a core part of who I am. It just oozes out of me.
Section 7: Parenting an Autistic Child and Personal Grow
Jacobsen: Do you have other projects that might evolve from your spirituality, therapy, or coaching work?
Jake: I’m developing a few ideas, but they’re still in the early stages. These projects will likely integrate spirituality and personal growth, building upon the work I’ve already done. I’m excited to see how they unfold.
I have a “Buffers” class about buffering yourself for a spiritual journey, specifically for ASD and autism moms. However, lately, I’ve focused heavily on the Shy Guy Whisperer work. That said, if there are moms with children with autism who want to explore the spiritual side of life and talk to me, they can find me on my website. I’m always happy to work with them.
My work revolves mostly around the packages I offer. I have an option called “90 Minutes of Power,” which includes a personality assessment. I’ve developed expertise in personality and communication from working with executives for many years. Other offerings include dating-related services, like helping with dating profiles, scriptwriting, confidence-building, and overall transformation—all of which I find fun and rewarding.
If you visit my website, you’ll find a variety of packages. I also have a journal I wrote called Your Daily Growth Partner, available on Amazon and a children’s book called The Purpose, which you can find on my website or as a Kindle version on Amazon. Additionally, I wrote an e-book for parents of children with autism focused on helping their children make friends. It includes 12 strategies that parents might not have thought of to help their child build friendships, which can be particularly challenging for parents of autistic children.
Jacobsen: What are some of the challenges you’ve encountered as a parent during that process, and how have you overcome them?
Jake: It’s been about learning that it’s not so much about me but about them and how I look at life. For example, if my daughter was being teased but didn’t see it that way and was happy, I learned to join her in her experience. If she wasn’t upset, why should I be? I realized there was no point in upsetting myself on her behalf if she wasn’t feeling upset.
This taught me to approach situations from a more spiritual perspective. It’s about shifting my focus and embracing her view of the world, which is often much more joyful.
Jacobsen: People often have deficits in some areas but tend to have compensatory strengths in others. What strengths have you noticed as a parent of a child on the spectrum?
Jake: The entire experience is character-building for the parent and child. Special needs parenting challenges all your insecurities, and you have to overcome those. It also teaches you to focus on helping your child grow and improve while realizing there’s no single way to live or be.
It fosters acceptance and tolerance—not just of your child, but of yourself and others. When you face your insecurities and deficits, the situation helps you find different ways of looking at things and teaches you to embrace a broader, more compassionate perspective. It’s a deeply rewarding journey that encourages growth on many levels.
Section 8: Final Thoughts and Resources
Jacobsen: Jena, any final thoughts or feelings based on the conversation today?
Jake: My final thought would be this: to anyone listening, I want you to know that you’re amazing. You’re not alone. I believe in you. Whatever you’re going through, consider it a training ground for greatness.
When you reach the end of your life, you’ll be glad you believed in yourself enough to push through, persevere, and celebrate who you truly are—because you are incredible. So thank you—thank you for listening. And if anyone wants to work with me, you can find me on my website at www.JenaJake.com.
Jacobsen: Jena, thank you for the opportunity to talk today. I appreciate it.
Jake: Thank you, Scott. And don’t forget to sign up for the course—it starts February 8th. It’s a great course, and for $350, it’s an incredible value.
Jacobsen: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Jake: Thank you so much, Scott. I loved being here, and I hope I get to come back again.
Courses: Upcoming “Quiet Power Method” course starting February 8th for $350
Publications: Available on Amazon and her website
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Jena Jake offers a comprehensive exploration of Jena’s expertise in therapy, coaching, and personal development, particularly focusing on assisting shy and neurodivergent individuals in the realms of relationships and dating. Jena Jake’s multifaceted approach combines traditional therapeutic techniques with modern coaching strategies, emphasizing self-empowerment and confidence building as central themes. A significant theme is Jena’s “Quiet Power Method,” a tailored program designed to help clients improve their dating skills, boost confidence, and overcome self-limiting beliefs by addressing social anxiety and reframing negative self-stories through personalized coaching. Additionally, Jena discusses the impact of social media on self-esteem and relationship perceptions, articulating how curated online personas can exacerbate insecurities and hinder authentic self-presentation. She provides strategies to help clients mitigate these negative influences, promoting self-acceptance and highlighting inherent strengths. Furthermore, Jena delves into her “Soul Streaker Podcast,” a platform dedicated to exploring spirituality and personal growth, reflecting her holistic approach to therapy and coaching. By integrating spiritual principles, she offers clients a deeper understanding of self-love and transformation beyond societal and ego-driven narratives. As a parent of an autistic child, Jena brings a unique perspective to her practice, emphasizing resilience, acceptance, and personal growth. Her parenting experiences have informed her therapeutic methods, fostering a compassionate and inclusive environment for her clients. The interview also highlights Jena’s diverse range of offerings, including online courses, personalized coaching packages, and published works, demonstrating her commitment to providing accessible and comprehensive support systems for personal and relational growth.
Methods
The interview with Jena Jake was conducted on January 8, 2025, and subsequently compiled for analysis. A semi-structured interview format was employed to facilitate an in-depth and flexible conversation, allowing both the interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and the interviewee, Jena Jake, to explore a wide range of topics related to therapy, coaching, and personal development. This approach enabled the discussion to flow naturally while ensuring that key areas of interest, such as Jena’s “Quiet Power Method,” the impact of social media on self-esteem, and her “Soul Streaker Podcast,” were thoroughly examined. The interview was conducted virtually via a secure video conferencing platform to ensure convenience and accessibility for both participants. With mutual consent, the session was recorded to capture the nuances of the conversation accurately. Following the interview, the recording was meticulously transcribed verbatim and organized into thematic sections, each corresponding to distinct topics discussed. This methodological approach ensured clarity and coherence, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of Jena Jake’s expertise and contributions to the fields of therapy and coaching.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Jena Jake on Therapy, Coaching, and Help for Shy Guys [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jake
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 13, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview offers a comprehensive exploration of Andrea McGinty’s expertise in matchmaking, online dating, and empowering mature singles. Conducted on January 22, 2025, the conversation delves into Andrea’s personal journey from traditional matchmaking to the digital realm, highlighting the founding of It’s Just Lunch and its evolution into 33000Dates.com. Andrea discusses the challenges and opportunities presented by the online dating landscape, emphasizing the importance of platform selection, profile optimization, and effective communication strategies. The dialogue addresses common pitfalls in online dating, such as poor photo selection and ineffective messaging, while providing tailored strategies for mature daters to navigate technological barriers and past relationship apprehensions. Additionally, Andrea emphasizes safety measures essential for secure online interactions and examines current trends, including the increasing adoption of online dating among older demographics and advancements in AI-driven verification technologies. The interview also touches upon Andrea’s media experiences and the lessons learned from high-profile appearances, underscoring the significance of authenticity and expertise in building trust. Overall, the conversation underscores the necessity for personalized coaching and quality-focused approaches to foster meaningful connections in the digital age, particularly for mature singles seeking lasting relationships.
Keywords: AI in Dating, 33000Dates.com, Digital Matchmaking, It’s Just Lunch, Matchmaking, Mature Singles, Online Dating, Online Dating Safety, Profile Optimization, Senior Dating Strategies
Introduction
In this insightful interview conducted on January 22, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages in an in-depth conversation with Andrea McGinty, a renowned American dating coach and entrepreneur known for her significant contributions to the matchmaking and online dating industries. Andrea McGinty is the founder of It’s Just Lunch, established in 1990, which rapidly expanded to 110 locations worldwide and successfully facilitated over 33,000 dates leading to more than 10,000 marriages. Recognizing the transformative impact of digital platforms on dating dynamics, Andrea transitioned to the online space eight years ago by launching 33000Dates.com, thereby addressing the evolving needs of modern daters. The interview begins with Andrea’s personal narrative, detailing her entry into the matchmaking field following a pivotal personal experience of being stood up at the altar in her twenties. This event spurred her to investigate the intricacies of how individuals meet and connect, ultimately identifying a market gap for personalized matchmaking services. Andrea elaborates on the expansion and success of It’s Just Lunch, emphasizing the importance of tailored matchmaking in fostering meaningful relationships.
As the conversation progresses, Andrea discusses the shift from traditional matchmaking to online dating, highlighting the complexities introduced by the vast array of digital platforms. She offers valuable insights into avoiding common online dating mistakes, such as selecting inappropriate platforms, using subpar photos, and engaging in ineffective messaging practices. Andrea underscores the necessity of aligning platform choice with one’s demographic and geographic context to enhance the likelihood of successful connections. A significant portion of the interview is dedicated to addressing the unique challenges faced by mature singles over the age of 50. Andrea provides strategic advice on building self-confidence, crafting compelling profiles, and implementing robust safety measures to ensure secure and positive online dating experiences. She emphasizes the importance of professional photography and effective communication in creating impactful first impressions and fostering genuine connections.
Furthermore, Andrea explores current trends in the online dating landscape, noting the increasing acceptance and utilization of digital matchmaking among older demographics. She discusses the role of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and verification processes, in enhancing the safety and efficacy of online dating platforms. Andrea also shares her experiences with media exposure, including appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show and features in People Magazine, highlighting how authenticity and expertise have been pivotal in building her brand’s credibility and trustworthiness. This interview provides valuable insights into Andrea McGinty’s strategic approach to matchmaking and online dating, particularly for mature singles seeking meaningful relationships. Her blend of traditional matchmaking principles with modern digital strategies offers a nuanced perspective on navigating the complexities of contemporary dating. Andrea’s expertise underscores the importance of personalized coaching, quality-focused profiles, and robust safety measures in fostering successful and secure online dating experiences.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Andrea McGinty
Section 1: Personal Journey into Sexuality Research
Andrea McGinty is a renowned American dating coach, entrepreneur, and author with over 30 years of experience in the dating industry. She founded It’s Just Lunch in 1990, a matchmaking service that grew to 110 locations worldwide, and later launched 33000Dates.com, a platform helping singles navigate online dating with tailored coaching, profile writing, and site selection. Featured on Oprah, Forbes, and People Magazine, McGinty has facilitated over 33,000 dates, leading to thousands of marriages. Author of 2nd Acts: 166 Winning Strategies for Dating Over 50, she is a trusted voice for mature singles embracing the complexities of modern dating. McGinty shared her journey from heartbreak to becoming a matchmaking entrepreneur, creating a business with 110 worldwide locations and arranging over 33,000 dates leading to 10,000+ marriages. She transitioned to coaching online daters, highlighting common pitfalls like poor photos, endless messaging, and platform misalignment. McGinty emphasized self-confidence, actionable first steps, and safety in online dating. Discussing her experiences with Oprah Winfrey and People Magazine, she reflected on the importance of authenticity and standing firm on her expertise. McGinty’s approach blends technology, human connection, and strategic advice, particularly for those over 40 embracing digital dating.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Andrea McGinty. We will discuss 33000Dates.com and her first foray into dating, It’s Just Lunch, particularly matchmaking services through that platform, the modern-day dating landscape, and related topics. How did you first become interested in matchmaking? In some ways, it’s a highly researched field. In other ways, it’s very diverse. However, it’s not always the first career choice for many people.
Andrea McGinty: Yes, it was not a career I dreamed of pursuing when I was five or ten. Here’s how I got into it: I was living in Chicago in my twenties and preparing to get married. On the wedding day, my fiancé stood me up at the altar. Suddenly, I was single.
Section 2: Founding It’s Just Lunch and Business Growth
So, there I was, in my twenties, living in Chicago. After getting through the emotional fallout—the weeping, crying, and all that—I asked myself, “How do people meet each other?” At the time, bars were still somewhat fun, but I was moving past that phase. I wondered, “Why isn’t there a place for this?” Remember, this was the early 1990s. Before Google, people were widely using the internet. I thought, “Why isn’t there a service like an executive recruiter for your personal life?”
That’s how I came up with the idea for It’s Just Lunch. I had landed alone, single, but ironically, I was naturally good at matchmaking. One of my friends from high school, whom I matched, is still married, as are two of my friends from college. However, I never thought of it as a career path. I studied finance and accounting in college and assumed that would be my career. But when I realized that a matchmaking service didn’t exist, I thought, “What if I started this?” If it were something I would use, others would as well.
The concept behind It’s Just lunch was simple: meeting for lunch or a drink after work, with someone arranging the date for you. There would be no prior interaction; you would arrive at a restaurant we told you to visit. The idea took off like wildfire. Over the next ten years, the business grew to 110 locations worldwide.
This idea stemmed from a personal need—something I thought I would use if it existed. I lived the experience firsthand; it wasn’t just some random concept. Matchmaking became a fun and fulfilling business. Matchmaking is what we do, and it still exists. I sold the business about eight years ago to private equity, and it’s still thriving.
I sold the company for two reasons. First, I was approached by two parties—one was a private equity firm, and the other was Match.com. I was married and had a baby then, so I thought it was a good time to sell.
Section 3: Transitioning to Online Dating and 33000Dates.com
The primary reason was that around 2010, I saw the writing on the wall regarding online dating. It was becoming more prominent, but it was also chaotic. People didn’t know how to use it effectively. However, unlike matchmaking where you’d have a pool of maybe 100 people, online dating had thousands of choices—and I thought, I have to teach people how to harness the power of online dating for love!
If you look back to the early 2000s or even 2010, online dating was still in its infancy. Scams were prevalent, and people often misrepresented themselves. Of course, some of these issues persist to this day. But many are legitimate and credible now.
McGinty: I was thinking to myself, this is the way of the future. With matchmaking, only a certain number of people are in your pool. Still, with online dating, the pool is huge—astronomical. That’s how online dating started for me and how 33000Dates.com came to be. The name 33000 Dates reflects how many dates I’ve set up—over 33,000. I’ve also been responsible for more than 10,000 marriages.
I married during the It’s Just Lunch days and was married 24 years before we divorced. This plays into my story—it was the genesis and catalyst for writing my book, 2nd Acts: Winning Dating Strategies for Dating Over 50, which was released January 15, 2025. I realized people needed help. I first noticed this when I had clients at It’s Just Lunch who used the matchmaking service and online dating.
After I sold It’s Just Lunch, my brother’s best friend was one of the first people to come to me for help. He was in his late 40s, recently divorced, and a good-looking guy. We stayed friends with him and his ex-wife even after the divorce. He said, “Andrea, I’m doing online dating, and it’s awful.” He shared his stories, and I thought, “Wait, this is a good-looking guy; he’s the CFO of a company, and he’s struggling?”
Section 4: Common Online Dating Mistakes
So, I asked him for his password to the dating site he was using and took a look. I was shocked. Men, in general, tend to make similar mistakes—although they’ve improved somewhat over the years. He had posted terrible photos and had no real profile to speak of. No wonder he wasn’t attracting the right matches!
I went in, changed his photos, and rewrote his profile, and within weeks, he was getting good dates. That’s how 33,000 Dates started—through word of mouth. Now, I primarily help people with online dating. Over 1,400 dating sites and apps exist in the U.S. and Canada alone. People often don’t know where to start or how to choose the right one.
Jacobsen: What are some universal mistakes people make on their profiles? I’m curious because you’ve seen many of these up close. I’m sure you get inundated with requests like, “Fix my profile!”
McGinty: Yes, I get a lot of “Fix me” requests—not just profiles but everything related to dating. The biggest issues I see are:
Choosing the Wrong Platform: There are 1,400 dating sites and apps, and most people have no idea where to start. In my 20s, I focused on the 20s and 30s crowd with It’s Just lunch. Now, I focus more on the 40s and 50s plus demographic. This group didn’t grow up with tech like younger generations so that the process can feel intimidating. Many are coming out of long-term marriages and never expected to be dating again. For example, someone might hear from a friend in New York that Bumble is fantastic. Then, they might try Bumble in Chicago, where it might not have as strong a platform. What works in one market often doesn’t work as effectively in another.
Poor Photos: This is a major issue. I’m very particular about photos—I even call myself a “photo Nazi.” After I do a Zoom call and interview with clients, I have them send me their photos. Around 70% of the time, I send them to a professional photographer. People underestimate the importance of good photos. First impressions matter much in online dating, and subpar pictures can immediately turn potential matches away.
Jacobsen: Wow.
McGinty: I don’t mean LinkedIn-style photos or overly posed portraits. I’m talking about photos that reflect what you do—action shots. Let’s capture those moments if you play golf, tennis, pickleball, or enjoy hiking. I had a woman yesterday who competes in outrigger canoe races. I told her, “I want a photo of you in the outrigger.” A picture paints a thousand words. We want good, current, action-oriented photos.
We also want photos showing you with other people—pictures demonstrating you’re social, you have a life, and you’re not solitary and lonely. The number one mistake people make is that they don’t know where to start. The second is their photos.
Section 5: Enhancing Profiles and Messaging Strategies
Online dating is a visual medium. You’re already at a disadvantage if you don’t have good photos. I don’t mean heavily photoshopped images where you look like a cartoon or use AI filters. I’m talking about genuine, high-quality photos. These create enough interest for someone to read your profile.
There’s a big difference between men and women regarding online dating. Men typically won’t read much—they’ll look at the photos, skim two or three lines of the profile, and that’s it. On the other hand, women often want to write novels about themselves. Their profiles continue, and I have to say, “No, no, no.”
We’ll write six bullet points about you and a short paragraph. Men’s content—whether in magazines or blogs—is often concise, bullet-pointed, or numbered. It’s straight to the point: “Boom, boom, boom—here’s who this person is.”
Jacobsen: What are other common mistakes people make?
McGinty: Oh, my gosh, one of the biggest mistakes is messaging. People get stuck in endless messaging back and forth. Worse, they move to phone calls without ever meeting in person.
For example, a male client said, “Yes, I talked to her the other night. We spoke for an hour.” I asked, “So when’s the date?” He replied, “Oh, we’re talking again tonight.” I said, “About what? You need to meet her!”
Keep it brief if you must make a phone call—and I’m not a big advocate of phone calls. I prefer one or two messages exchanged online, and then I suggest meeting in person. Arrange to meet in a safe, neutral venue: a restaurant for a drink, lunch, coffee, or even a walk or hike. There’s no need for endless messaging or lengthy phone calls.
Phone calls can also create unrealistic expectations. For instance, the client I mentioned told me, “Andrea, she’s fantastic. I’ve already told my golf buddies about her, and we’re having another call tonight.” When he meets her, his expectations are sky-high. He’s convinced she’s “the one.”
Conversely, the opposite can happen. A phone call might fall flat because one or both parties aren’t great on the phone. If they had met in person, they might have clicked. That’s why I advocate for meeting in real life.
Section 6: Age-Specific Dating Strategies and Confidence Building
The only exception I make for phone calls is when someone lives far away—maybe an hour or more. In that case, I recommend a brief 10-minute call with clear boundaries. You can say in a message, “I’d like to meet you. Let’s do a 10-minute call to see if we’d like to meet in person.” This approach sets expectations and avoids aimless, rambling phone conversations.
Jacobsen: That makes sense.
McGinty: Good. Boundaries and action are key.
Jacobsen: And how does this approach to the style of presentation change for someone in their 40s versus someone in their 70s? I’m assuming it differs not only by gender but also by age, as people approach these apps and services differently.
McGinty: It does. It’s a different story once you get to people in their 60s, especially women. First, they didn’t grow up with this technology. Second, I often have to push back on this point with clients. Women say, “I was online and didn’t meet anyone.”
I’ll ask, “How many messages did you send?”
They’ll respond, “Oh, none.”
Then I asked, “Why didn’t you send any messages?”
They’ll reply, “Well, he should contact me first.”
I tell them, “No, no, no! It doesn’t work like that anymore.” Self-confidence is sexy. Men in their 60s and 70s find it incredibly attractive when a woman takes the initiative. For example, if she sends a message saying, “Wow, I saw your photo of you scuba diving. I once went scuba diving in XYZ and am interested in getting to know you. I’m available for lunch on Thursday or Friday at 12 or 1. What do you think?”
That’s when you start getting dates. It’s not pushy at all. When I coach clients, especially in the beginning, I’ll even type messages for them and read them aloud. Their reaction is often, “We’re sending that? He’s going to think I’m forward!”
And I’ll respond, “No, he’s going to think you’re self-confident.” That’s the kind of energy that works.
Self confidence is so sexy to men!
Section 7: Navigating Generational Differences and Building Trust
When people wonder why they’re not getting dates or messages back, it often comes down to the women only sending hearts, likes, smiles, or winks. As for the men, I feel for them—half of my clients are men. They’ll say, “Andrea, look at my likes column! I have 12 women who liked me.” But all these women did was wink or send a heart without any message.
That leaves the ball in the man’s court, forcing him to do all the work. There’s a generational difference here. When I work with people in their 40s or 50s, women are generally fine with reaching out, and men are comfortable reaching out to women. But it’s a different story in the 60s and 70s age group.
It’s about re-educating them, helping them overcome the fear of online dating, and addressing concerns like, “My picture is going to be out there.” I remind them, “Your picture is already out there! You’re on Facebook.” That age group uses Facebook frequently, while younger people are on Instagram or other platforms.
I tell them, “If you’re already on social media, what’s the difference? Your picture is already visible.” It’s about making them comfortable putting themselves out there and understanding that online dating is a 50/50 effort. Both parties need to contribute.
Jacobsen: What about quick safety tips? These are very rational and reasonable concerns, like meeting someone in an open, safe place for the first date.
McGinty: Absolutely. Safety is a priority, especially for first dates.
Section 8: Ensuring Safety and Addressing Online Dating Trends
McGinty: You don’t want someone to pick you up at your home. That doesn’t make sense. You’re going to meet someone at a safe venue.
Many of the dating sites I work with now—there are so many of them, but I tend to focus on the top 25 to 50 sites—have good verification procedures. For example, before you can even access some platforms, you must take a real-time photo matching the photos you’re posting to ensure it’s you.
Additionally, there are other ways to verify someone’s identity. For instance, you can take someone’s photo from their profile and put it into Google’s reverse image search, which might provide more information, such as their last name.
Some clients even dig deeper, checking whether a person has ever had a bankruptcy, liens on their home, or similar details. The process has become much cleaner and safer in the last five to ten years than it used to be.
Jacobsen: Where do you see these trends going now? Are there new concerns? Are there new hopes—perhaps a “Star Wars” theme?
McGinty: Yes. There’s been some press lately about people in their 20s stepping away from online dating—they’re not using it as much. In contrast, the 40- to 65-year-old market is finally embracing it.
One big trend is the increasing adoption of online dating by this older age group. They’re moving away from traditional options like matchmaking or speed dating and leaning into online platforms.
Another significant trend is the growth of umbrella platforms like Match.com, which owns around 25 different sites, or Dating.com, which operates multiple platforms under one umbrella. These companies are actively pursuing the older demographic because it’s more affluent.
Unlike younger users, who often won’t pay for premium features, the 45——to 65-year-old group doesn’t hesitate to pay $50 or more per month for an online dating subscription. They understand that paying adds value—it helps filter out people who aren’t serious or who might just be browsing.
Section 9: The Role of Verification and Media Exposure
When clients ask me about Facebook Dating, I explain that Facebook has an advantage because it has so much data on the 40——to 65—year—old demographic—they’ve been using Facebook for over a decade. The platform can refine matches by geography, demographics, and other factors.
However, Facebook Dating’s downside is that it’s free. If Facebook started charging for the service, it could filter out casual users and create a more serious pool of daters. As it stands, I can’t think of a single success story from a client who met someone on Facebook Dating. All the success stories I’ve had come from paid sites.
Jacobsen: Does combining verification processes and paid services help prevent scams and other issues?
McGinty: Yes. Verification processes—like requiring real-time photo matching—and charging for access serve as effective barriers. They significantly reduce the risk of scams and ensure that the people on these platforms are more serious about dating.
These features address some of the problems prevalent in the earlier days of online dating, such as fake profiles and dishonest users. The combination of paying for access and strong verification procedures creates a safer and more reliable experience for everyone involved.
That old Nigerian prince scam—you may not even remember this—that was prevalent on free dating sites. Those kinds of scams were everywhere. However, paid sites eliminate most scammers because they’re unwilling to pay $50 or more, sometimes even $100 or $150 monthly, to carry out their schemes.
Additionally, the algorithms on these sites are now very advanced and effective at detecting and removing bots. Bots that attempt to infiltrate and run scams are usually caught quickly. AI has also made a significant difference in identifying and eliminating these threats.
Section 10: Lessons from Media Appearances and Final Insights
Jacobsen: That’s a problem. What was your big lesson from appearing on Oprah Winfrey’s show and being featured in People magazine?
McGinty: My big lesson? Oh, from Oprah? Well, Oprah was incredible. My website crashed after I was featured on her show.
Jacobsen: She has a very dedicated fan base, for sure.
McGinty: Yes, oh my gosh. When I did The Oprah Winfrey Show, it was a three-day process. They sent a producer to work with me, and they followed and filmed a couple going out to lunch. Then we were all with Oprah two days later, talking on her show. The couple discussed their date, and I discussed dating and how it all worked. The segment I was featured in was titled Quirky Ways People Became Millionaires.
It included me, the woman who founded Build-A-Bear, the man who invented Dippin’ Dots, and a few others I can’t remember. Right before you’re about to go on, their legal team comes into the green room with a stack of documents for each of you to sign.
They say, “If you don’t sign this, you’re not going on the show.” You’re given no time to read the documents. Of course, you want to go on the show—you’ve already spent two days filming your segment in a restaurant. That shocked me, but everyone signed, including me.
Then they add, “By the way, not all of you will make it on the show. We always overbook.” I thought, “Wait, I’ve invested all this time with them following this couple, and now I might not make it?”
When the show started, Oprah introduced the segment, saying, “Today we’ve got the Build-A-Bear lady…” Then she said, “And we’ve got Andrea McGinty, who’s had over 10,000 marriages.” That’s when I knew I made it—I was so relieved.
With People Magazine, the lesson I learned was that it’s not worth asking clients to participate unless it’s a significant publication. In the 1990s, it wasn’t easy to convince clients to have their photos taken and go on a date while being followed by a magazine for five hours. Privacy concerns made it challenging, so I decided it had to be worth the effort, like a big feature in People Magazine.
Jacobsen: Interesting. What was the lesson you took away from Oprah?
McGinty: The lesson from Oprah was about sticking to what you know. I said no to Oprah three times before I said yes. I was very picky about the segment I wanted to do with her.
The first couple of times her producers approached me, they wanted me to fix up Gayle King, Oprah’s best friend, on dates and then report back. I declined because that’s not what I do. I stuck to my expertise, and in the end, I got to be part of a great episode—the Quirky Ways People Became Millionaires segment.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Andrea McGinty offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolution of the dating industry, particularly emphasizing the shift from traditional matchmaking services to modern online dating platforms. Andrea McGinty’s journey from founding It’s Just Lunch to launching 33000Dates.com highlights her ability to adapt to changing societal norms and technological advancements. A significant theme in the discussion is the importance of high-quality profiles and authentic presentation in online dating. McGinty identifies common pitfalls such as poor photo quality and ineffective profile writing, which can hinder successful matches. Her strategies for enhancing client profiles—through professional photography and concise, action-oriented descriptions—underscore the critical role of first impressions in digital interactions.
Another key aspect of the interview focuses on the unique challenges faced by mature singles, particularly those over 40, in navigating the online dating landscape. McGinty emphasizes the necessity of tailored coaching to address technological intimidation and rebuilding self-confidence after long-term relationships or divorces. Additionally, the conversation delves into the significance of safety and verification in online dating, advocating for robust processes to mitigate risks associated with digital interactions. McGinty’s insights into the effectiveness of paid dating platforms in reducing scams and fostering a more serious dating environment reflect broader industry trends towards enhancing user security and trust. Overall, the interview underscores the multifaceted nature of modern dating, where technology, personal branding, and strategic coaching intersect to create effective matchmaking solutions.
Methods
The interview with Andrea McGinty was conducted on January 13, 2025, and subsequently compiled on January 22, 2025. A semi-structured interview format was employed to facilitate an in-depth and flexible conversation, allowing both the interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and the interviewee, Andrea McGinty, to explore a wide range of topics related to the dating industry. This approach enabled the discussion to flow naturally while ensuring that key areas of interest, such as the founding of It’s Just Lunch, the transition to online dating with 33000Dates.com, and strategies for enhancing online profiles, were thoroughly examined. Prior to the interview, a set of guiding questions was agreed upon to elicit detailed responses about McGinty’s professional journey, business evolution, and her insights into current and future trends in dating services. The interview was conducted virtually via a secure video conferencing platform to ensure convenience and accessibility for both participants. With mutual consent, the session was recorded to capture the nuances of the conversation accurately. Following the interview, the recording was meticulously transcribed verbatim and organized into thematic sections, each corresponding to distinct topics discussed. This methodological approach ensured clarity and coherence, allowing readers to navigate the complex subjects seamlessly and gain a comprehensive understanding of Andrea McGinty’s expertise and contributions to the dating industry.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Andrea McGinty on Matchmaking and Mating [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mcginty
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: November 4, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 22, 2025
Abstract
This interview presents an in-depth conversation between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller, a renowned social psychologist and Research Fellow at The Kinsey Institute. Dr. Lehmiller discusses his extensive research on human sexuality, including sexual fantasies, casual sex, consensual non-monogamy, and sexual health. The dialogue explores the evolution of sex education, highlighting the disparities in North American educational frameworks and contrasting them with progressive models like the Netherlands’ “Long Live Love” program. Dr. Lehmiller addresses common misconceptions about sexual behaviors and disorders, such as porn addiction and sex addiction, emphasizing the importance of scientific scrutiny over societal stereotypes. Additionally, the interview delves into the impact of social media on self-perception and sexual health, the challenges and dynamics of consensual non-monogamous relationships, and the ongoing stigmatization of sex research. The conversation underscores the necessity for comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to sexuality education and research to foster healthier and more informed societal attitudes toward human sexuality.
Keywords: Consensual Non-Monogamy, Human Sexuality, Long Live Love Program, Porn Addiction, Sex Addiction, Sex Education, Sexual Fantasies, Sexual Health, Sexual Psychology, Social Media Impact
Introduction
In this insightful interview conducted on January 20, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen engages in a comprehensive discussion with Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller, a distinguished social psychologist and Research Fellow at The Kinsey Institute. Dr. Lehmiller is internationally recognized for his expertise in human sexuality, having authored influential textbooks and popular works such as “Tell Me What You Want” and “The Psychology of Human Sexuality.” His research encompasses a broad spectrum of topics, including sexual fantasies, casual sex, consensual non-monogamy, and sexual health, with publications featured in prominent outlets like Playboy, VICE, and USA Today. The conversation begins with Dr. Lehmiller’s personal journey into the field of sexuality research, highlighting his academic background and the pivotal moment that directed his focus toward integrating sexuality into the study of romantic relationships. The interview progresses to examine prevailing misconceptions about human sexuality, emphasizing the importance of scientific inquiry in debunking societal myths such as the incomplete understanding of the clitoris and the oversimplified notion that “opposites attract.” A significant portion of the dialogue addresses generational differences in sexual behaviors and relationship preferences, noting trends such as reduced sexual activity among younger adults juxtaposed with an increase in kinkier sexual practices. Dr. Lehmiller also explores the complexities of consensual non-monogamous relationships, discussing the challenges of navigating jealousy and societal stigma despite growing cultural acceptance and media representation. The interview further critiques the current state of sex education in North America, contrasting it with the Netherlands’ comprehensive “Long Live Love” program. Dr. Lehmiller advocates for age-appropriate, scientifically accurate sex education that evolves with developmental stages, arguing that such approaches are crucial for fostering healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors. Finally, the conversation delves into the role of social media in shaping perceptions of sexuality, the misconceptions surrounding sex and porn addiction, and the enduring stigmatization of sex research. Dr. Lehmiller emphasizes the need for evidence-based frameworks and increased funding to advance the understanding of human sexuality beyond prevailing negative narratives. This interview provides valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of human sexuality, the importance of robust sex education, and the ongoing challenges faced by researchers in the field. Dr. Lehmiller’s expertise offers a nuanced perspective on fostering healthier societal attitudes toward sexuality through informed research and comprehensive educational strategies.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Prof. Justin Lehmiller
Section 1: Personal Journey into Sexuality Research
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Justin Lehmiller. He is a social psychologist and research fellow at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. His work focuses on human sexuality, including sexual fantasies, casual sex, consensual non-monogamy, and sexual health. He is the author of Tell Me What You Want and The Psychology of Human Sexuality, a widely used textbook. Today, we’re going to discuss your expertise specifically. As a quick background question, what was the first clue that this topic would become an intriguing research area for you to pursue professionally in the long term?
Prof. Justin Lehmiller: Well, sexuality was not something I initially considered for my career until I was already in graduate school working on my PhD in social psychology. I went to Purdue University to study the psychology of romantic relationships. While there, I was assigned to teach a human sexuality course.
That was my first exposure to the world of sex research. I attended Catholic schools for much of my life, including middle school, my undergraduate studies, and my master’s program. Sex wasn’t a common topic of discussion in those environments, and I hadn’t taken any formal courses on it.
It wasn’t until I was assigned as a teaching assistant that I realized sexuality is an area scientists actively study. I learned how important it is and realized that here I was, studying to be a social psychologist focusing on romantic relationships, and nobody was talking about sex, which seemed strange. My goal became integrating sexuality research into my relationship research, and that has been the focus of my work ever since.
Over the years, my research has expanded to cover many different aspects of sexuality because there are many fascinating and vital questions in this field.
Section 2: Surprising Aspects of Human Sexuality
Jacobsen: What are some of the most surprising aspects of human sexuality—things that we think we know but, as laypeople, do not?
Lehmiller: There are many things we assume about sex that often don’t hold up under scientific scrutiny. For example, research on the clitoris revealed something surprising: it wasn’t until about 20 years ago that we finally mapped out the entire structure of this organ in the body. This is just one example of how much of what we think we know or take for granted about human sexuality can be incomplete or incorrect until it is examined scientifically.
Another example is the popular belief that “opposites attract.” While there is some truth to the idea that having a partner with some differences can be exciting, research shows that most people prefer similar partners. Shared values foster a sense of safety, understanding, and acceptance. When discussing conventional beliefs like “opposites attract,” the reality is often more complex once we delve into the research.
Section 3: Generational Differences in Sexual Behaviors and Relationship Preferences
Jacobsen: Demographers also tend to analyze different generational cohorts, such as Gen Z, millennials, boomers, and Gen X, to better understand these dynamics. What are some of the differences you find in those cohorts, demographically, in terms of their sexual behaviours and relationship preferences?
Lehmiller: There are many differences across generations, and one of them is that there are differences in sexual activity levels. For example, younger adults are less sexually active today compared to previous generations. They are having less sex with fewer partners. However, the type of sex they are engaging in tends to be kinkier compared to generations past.
So, less sex but more kink for younger adults. Another aspect I’ve looked at in my work is how sexual fantasies differ at different stages of life. This is an area that had not been previously explored because most published studies on sexual fantasies are based on college students and young adults. These samples might not necessarily represent the broader population when it comes to what we fantasize about or think about regarding sex.
One of the findings is that younger adults, in addition to having more kinky fantasies than older adults, also have more fantasies about romance, passion, and connection. By contrast, when examining midlife adults, they tend to have more fantasies involving sex with multiple partners, novelty and excitement, and taboo activities. This reflects the developmental time course of sexual fantasies, where they evolve and adapt over time to meet specific needs during different life stages.
Many younger adults, especially those today, have not had significant relationship experiences yet. Young adults are living in an era of delayed adulthood, where traditional milestones are being pushed back, such as waiting longer to have sex for the first time, entering serious, committed relationships, or getting married. This is reflected in their fantasies, which often focus more on passion, romance, intimacy, and connection.
Older adults, many of whom have been in long-term monogamous relationships for extended periods, often feel a need to break out of their routines and explore something new and different. We know that people tend to grow bored with sexual routines, so exploring sexuality and relationships at various phases of life or through different generational lenses is valuable. Sexuality constantly evolves and changes throughout our lives.
Section 4: Gender Differences in Sexual Fantasies
Jacobsen: What are some of the noteworthy similarities and differences, gender-wise, in terms of sex or sexual fantasies?
Lehmiller: In terms of sexual fantasies and sexual preferences, I would preface this by saying there are many differences across genders, but there are also numerous similarities. Ultimately, we are more similar than different when looking at the content of sexual fantasies. Most of the things men fantasize about, women also fantasize about, and vice versa. However, some key differences do exist.
For instance, men are more likely than women to frequently fantasize about sex with multiple partners or engage in taboo or forbidden activities—things they are not supposed to do.
By contrast, women, compared to men, have more fantasies about passion, romance, and intimacy—fantasies that meet deeper needs for emotional connection. However, women also report more fantasies involving kink and BDSM than men do. It’s important to note that men also fantasize about passion and romance; most have done so at some point.
Most men have also fantasized about kink, just as most women have fantasized about multiple partners and taboo activities. But when looking at the frequency of these fantasies, significant differences emerge across genders.
Section 5: Lifespan Changes in Sexuality
Jacobsen: What about across the arc of the lifespan? How do people adapt to physiological changes, energy levels, and shifts in their self-perception and sexuality over time? What are some of the changes that occur over that arc you mentioned earlier?
Lehmiller: Sexuality changes in many ways as we age. Starting with physiological or physical changes, we know that as people get older, they are more likely to develop chronic health conditions, sexual dysfunctions, and other difficulties. That’s not to say that young adults can’t experience these issues—many do—but overall health status typically changes as we age, which can impact our sex lives.
For instance, chronic illnesses or certain disabilities can make specific sexual activities more challenging, less comfortable, or less pleasurable. They can also lead to changes in sexual function. For example, someone with cardiovascular issues might encounter arousal problems, such as erectile difficulties or issues with vaginal lubrication.
In addition, for women, menopause and the subsequent abrupt reduction in sex hormone production can significantly affect sexual functioning and pleasure. So, there are numerous physical changes over time that we need to adapt to. Unfortunately, the only sex education most of us receive, if we’re lucky enough to get any, occurs during adolescence. In reality, we need sex education tailored to our current stage of life. Hence, we understand how our bodies are functioning at that time. But it’s not just the physical changes we experience.
Psychologically, our desires and needs also evolve. For example, when looking at sexuality among older adults, one key factor in maintaining sexual satisfaction is having a flexible definition of sex that evolves. Seniors who maintain a strict definition of sex as solely penetration often experience more declines in sexual satisfaction. By contrast, older adults who adopt a broader view of sex—seeing it as a form of intimacy that includes a range of activities—tend to experience fewer decreases in satisfaction and, in some cases, report increases.
So, to maintain sexual satisfaction as we age, we need to adapt both physically and psychologically, changing the way we approach and think about sex.
Then, of course, on top of all of this, we also experience changes in our relationships over time. These changes can create certain sexual issues and difficulties as well. I like to think of sex as a biopsychosocial phenomenon. You have the biological and physiological factors that impact our sexuality, the psychological factors such as personality traits and characteristics, and the social and environmental factors, including our relationships and cultural context. All these elements interact and influence our sexuality.
To talk about maintaining sexual health and satisfaction, we need to consider all of these factors. We can’t focus solely on one aspect; we need to look at them within this interconnected, broader context.
Section 6: Impact of Social Media on Sexuality
Jacobsen: One major change in recent years has been the rise of social media and communication technologies. How do these impact people’s self-perception, conceptions of healthy sexuality, and overall experiences? Are these significant factors or just pervasive without much impact?
Lehmiller: As part of the biopsychosocial model I mentioned, social media falls into the social category. It is indeed a significant factor that can influence our sexuality. One way social media impacts us is that many people use it to learn and find answers to their questions. Traditional sex education often doesn’t cover everything people need to know, so more and more individuals turn to the internet and social media to fill those gaps.
On social media, numerous influencers and content creators post about sex and relationships regularly. As a sex educator, I try to post educational, science-based content that provides responsible and hopefully helpful information. However, there is also much misinformation circulating online. People sometimes post content not backed by science, leading to widespread misconceptions.
A good example of this is the annual online challenge called “No Nut November,” where men encourage each other to abstain from masturbation, porn, sex, and orgasm for the entire month. The stated goal of this challenge is often to boost testosterone. There’s a popular notion on social media that men should practice semen retention to increase testosterone and enhance vitality.
And the reality is that no science or data supports those claims. This is where social media can become dangerous as a source for learning about sex because so much of the information available is not scientifically based. People must be cautious about whom they follow and what content they engage with online. Before making significant changes to your sex life or intimate life, you should vet the information to ensure its credibility and accuracy. That’s one-way social media can impact our sexuality—by shaping what we learn and think about it.
But there are many other ways as well. Increasingly, social media is influencing our dating lives. People often post details of their dates online, sometimes leading to what I would call “performative dating,” where the focus shifts to doing things for followers, likes, and comments rather than cultivating authentic human connections. This can create distorted views of what healthy sexual and romantic relationships look like because we’re exposed to a curated, selectively edited version of reality. This selective presentation raises our comparison standards and can make us feel inadequate as if we’re not measuring up to others who seem to have perfect dates and relationships. We must see the conflicts, difficulties, and challenges behind the scenes.
So, yes, there are many ways in which social media can influence our sex lives and relationships.
Section 7: Claims about Porn Addiction and Sex Addiction
Jacobsen: Many people have heard claims about disorders such as porn addiction or sex addiction. Is there any data that supports these claims?
Lehmiller: Sex and porn addiction are frequently discussed topics on social media, often surrounded by misinformation. First and foremost, there is no formal clinical diagnosis of sex addiction or porn addiction. If you look in the DSM, the “psychiatry Bible,” you won’t find these conditions listed. These are contentious concepts within the field of sex therapy and, more broadly, in psychology and psychiatry.
My view, after extensively reviewing the literature, is that some people do struggle to regulate their sexual behaviour or porn use and may experience negative impacts. However, this is relatively uncommon. It’s not as pervasive as popular media might suggest. Most people, when surveyed, report that pornography has no negative effects on them, or even positive effects.
For the minority who do experience negative impacts from porn use, the data often points to moral conflicts as the primary cause. They may engage in behaviours like watching porn or masturbating but feel that these actions go against their moral or personal values. This creates a state of dissonance—an uncomfortable discrepancy between values and behaviour—that people naturally seek to resolve. Many who experience this dissonance may label themselves as “porn addicts” or “sex addicts,” as framing it as an addiction shifts the blame from themselves to a perceived disease.
In some ways, identifying with that label can act as a self-protective factor, explaining the discomfort stemming from their behaviour and values being misaligned.
This is one of those controversial concepts, but it’s not just about moral conflicts. For some people, there are compulsive urges to engage in sexual behaviour, which could include pornography use or partnered sexual activities. These compulsions may be linked to underlying mood disorders or conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). So, yes, there can be compulsive reasons for engaging in certain sexual behaviours, but this is distinct from the concept of addiction. The evidence doesn’t align with the idea of addiction.
For example, when considering addiction, one key characteristic is the development of tolerance—needing more and more of the behaviour or substance to achieve the same level of satisfaction. Data does not support the idea that pornography use leads to a buildup of tolerance over time. Many aspects of compulsive behaviour do not match up with the addiction model, and a compulsive disorder explanation often makes more sense in these cases. Thus, I believe it’s more accurate to frame these issues as involving moral conflicts or compulsive behaviour rather than addiction.
Section 8: North American Sex Education Systems
Jacobsen: Regarding current educational models or knowledge frameworks, what are North American systems getting right and wrong about healthy sexuality, sexual desires, sexual behaviours, and sexual psychology, especially in the K-12 education system?
Lehmiller: In the United States, sex education is a patchwork of laws. Not every state even requires sex education for adolescents. Currently, only 29 states mandate sex education for adolescents, leaving a significant number of states where it isn’t required at all. Even among the states where it is mandated, only about 15 require the education provided to be medically accurate. This is astonishing because it means there are over a dozen states where students are taught sex ed that does not need to be factual or useful—it could be anything.
This is where we struggle: there is no consistent framework in place to ensure high-quality sex education is delivered. Most sex education happens at the local level, determined by local school boards and often influenced by parents and community opinions, which can lead to varied and sometimes inadequate sex education. The lack of uniform standards is one of the biggest issues, as it leads to a disparity in the quality and comprehensiveness of sex education across the country.
The way that most sex education works in the U.S. is at the local level, where local school boards determine what should be taught, often with input from parents, PTA boards, and other community stakeholders. Many of the people who are most vocal about sex education are those who are against it being taught in the first place. This is why abstinence-based sex education remains prevalent in the U.S. There are areas where comprehensive sex education is offered. Many of these programs do quite well. However, many students still receive education that needs to be more comprehensive.
When considering effective models for teaching younger adults and adolescents about sex, we need to look at what other countries are doing. I include this in my study abroad courses for sex therapists, researchers, and educators. We visit other countries and speak with local sex educators to understand their approaches and what we can learn from them. My favourite program is in the Netherlands. They have a program called Long Live Love, which is used in most Dutch schools.
It’s a program that begins in kindergarten, adding new components as children progress through their education. I know some people might be taken aback when they hear “sex ed for kindergartners” and wonder what that entails. It doesn’t involve teaching young children about intercourse or explicit content. Instead, it focuses on teaching them the names of their body parts and developing communication skills. For example, children learn how to communicate about things like good and bad touch and how to express their boundaries.
This approach lays the foundation for improved communication skills from an early age. Teaching kids the proper names for their body parts is crucial for safety. If a child experiences sexual assault, being able to report what happened accurately is essential. Providing them the language to communicate with parents or trusted adults can help keep them safer. The Dutch program is age-appropriate and evolves to provide the necessary knowledge at different developmental stages.
As children grow, the curriculum focuses on puberty and bodily changes. Beyond that, it covers what they need to know about sex, staying safe, and forming healthy relationships. One often-missing element in sex education is the relationship component. Sexual activity always occurs within some relational context, so separating discussions of sex and relationships is unhelpful. This ties back to my earlier point that relationship researchers often overlook sex, while many sex researchers don’t focus on relationships. We need to discuss both together to some extent.
I highly recommend the Long Live Love program in the Netherlands. We could learn much from it to improve our programs, which need to be improved in many ways.
Section 9: Consensual Non-Monogamy
Jacobsen: Let’s shift to consensual non-monogamy. These relationships can come with challenges, such as jealousy and societal stigma. How do individuals navigate those relationships, and how is the cultural context of these relationships evolving?
Lehmiller: Consensual non-monogamy involves relationships where people have more than one sexual or romantic partner at the same time, with everyone’s consent. These relationships are on the rise, and interest in them is increasing. For instance, Google searches related to polyamory and open relationships have been on the rise over the last 10 to 20 years.
We also see increased media depictions of people in non-monogamous relationships, leading to greater cultural recognition and awareness compared to the past. While these relationships are often portrayed as more evolved or progressive, some people talk about how jealousy doesn’t exist. Partners enjoy each other’s happiness; that is not the whole story. Many individuals in polyamorous or consensually non-monogamous relationships still face challenges, and jealousy can and does arise in these relationships.
Navigating consensual non-monogamy can be difficult because many people don’t have a clear framework or template for how these relationships should function. Those who open their relationships often don’t know what ground rules and boundaries should be discussed and established up front, which can lead to complications. Some people think that opening up a relationship will solve existing sexual issues. Still, they may find that it introduces a new set of challenges.
Consensual non-monogamous relationships can work, and when comparing monogamous and non-monogamous relationships, satisfaction levels are often similar. Either type of relationship can be fulfilling, but each comes with its own unique set of issues. Entering a consensually non-monogamous relationship means trading in for different challenges that need to be navigated with your partner. Reading guidebooks and resources can be helpful for those considering opening up their relationship. For example, books like Opening Up, More Than Two, and The Ethical Slut are valuable resources for understanding potential issues and learning how to navigate these relationships healthily.
Section 10: Societal Stereotypes and Misconceptions in Sex Research
Jacobsen: As social conversations about sexuality and sexual satisfaction evolve, how are people who are more exploratory still stereotyped? How is sex research itself stereotyped, and what misconceptions persist in the public eye?
Lehmiller: It’s interesting to see how societal attitudes have shifted. Over the past few decades, society has become more sex-positive in many ways. For example, public opinion polls in the U.S. and many Western countries show increasing acceptance of people who are not heterosexual, sex outside of marriage, divorce, and having children outside of marriage. By many measures, we are more accepting than we were in the past.
However, sex negativity still exists. Sexual double standards persist, with women often judged more harshly than men for exploring their sexuality. Slut-shaming, though more recognized now than before, still happens despite efforts to reduce it. This reflects how society continues to stereotype people who are more sexually exploratory.
Sex research, too, is often stereotyped or misunderstood. Historically, it has been controversial. Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s research in the 1940s and 1950s was met with intense backlash, and to this day, sex research remains contentious. This makes it difficult for researchers to secure funding, as the U.S. government is hesitant to fund studies that don’t focus on negative aspects of sex, such as STIs or teen pregnancy. This reluctance extends to research on positive aspects of sex, like pleasure or fantasies, which often face significant challenges in obtaining financial support. The field is challenging due to the lack of broad acceptance and limited funding for crucial research.
Section 11: Public Perception of Sex Research
Jacobsen: How does the general public view sex research?
Lehmiller: Sex research has always been controversial. If you go back to the pioneering work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s and 1950s, it generated explosive controversy. Even today, sex research remains a contentious topic within the public eye, making it difficult for sex researchers to secure funding for their work. In the U.S., obtaining funds for sexuality research is challenging. Researchers often need to rely on private organizations rather than government grants because the U.S. government is hesitant to fund research in the realm of sexuality that does not focus on negative aspects, such as STIs or teen pregnancy prevention.
This extends to areas like sexual pleasure or fantasies, which rarely receive government funding. As a result, the field can be difficult to work in, lacking widespread acceptance, and often facing financial obstacles when conducting meaningful research.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your insights today. I appreciate it.
Lehmiller: Thanks so much for having me.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller offers a nuanced examination of human sexuality, highlighting the intricate interplay between individual behaviors, societal norms, and educational frameworks. Dr. Lehmiller’s insights challenge prevalent misconceptions, such as the underappreciation of the clitoris in human sexuality and the oversimplified notion that “opposites attract.” By grounding these discussions in empirical research, the interview underscores the importance of scientific inquiry in debunking myths and fostering a more accurate understanding of sexual health and behaviors. One of the significant themes explored is the generational shift in sexual behaviors and relationship preferences. Dr. Lehmiller highlights that younger adults today are experiencing delayed adulthood, resulting in fewer sexual partners but a greater inclination towards kinkier sexual practices. This shift may reflect broader cultural and societal changes, including the impact of technology and social media on personal relationships and sexual expression. The discussion on consensual non-monogamy further illuminates how evolving relationship structures require new frameworks and resources to navigate challenges like jealousy and societal stigma effectively.
The critique of North American sex education systems, contrasted with the Netherlands’ “Long Live Love” program, underscores the disparities in how different cultures approach sexual education. Dr. Lehmiller advocates for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education that evolves with developmental stages, emphasizing the importance of communication skills and accurate knowledge from an early age. This perspective aligns with existing literature that emphasizes the role of education in shaping sexual health and satisfaction. Additionally, the interview delves into the role of social media in shaping perceptions of sexuality. While social media platforms offer opportunities for education and connection, they also pose risks through the spread of misinformation and the promotion of unrealistic standards. Dr. Lehmiller’s discussion of “performative dating” and challenges like “No Nut November” illustrates the complex ways in which social media influences individual self-perception and relationship dynamics.
Furthermore, the exploration of concepts like porn addiction and sex addiction reveals the complexities and controversies within the field of sexual psychology. Dr. Lehmiller challenges the validity of these addiction models, arguing that many reported cases are better understood through the lens of moral conflicts or compulsive behaviors rather than true addiction. This perspective calls for a more nuanced approach to addressing problematic sexual behaviors, one that considers underlying psychological factors and personal values. Overall, the interview emphasizes the necessity for ongoing research and improved educational frameworks to foster a more informed and accepting societal attitude towards human sexuality. Dr. Lehmiller’s expertise highlights the interplay between biological, psychological, and social factors in shaping sexual health and behaviors, advocating for policies and educational programs that reflect the complexity and variability of sexual experiences across different life stages and cultural contexts.
Methods
The interview with Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller was conducted on November 4, 2024, and subsequently published on January 22, 2025. A semi-structured interview format was employed to facilitate an in-depth exploration of Dr. Lehmiller’s expertise in human sexuality. This approach allowed for both guided questions and open-ended responses, enabling a comprehensive discussion of various topics such as sexual fantasies, consensual non-monogamy, sex education, and the impact of social media on sexuality. The interview was recorded with the consent of both parties to ensure accuracy in transcription. Following the interview, the recording was meticulously transcribed verbatim and organized into thematic sections based on the subjects covered. This organization ensured clarity and coherence, allowing readers to navigate the complex topics discussed seamlessly. The structured methodology of this interview aimed to provide a holistic understanding of human sexuality by addressing both biological and psychosocial factors. By focusing on Dr. Lehmiller’s extensive research and practical experiences, the interview seeks to bridge the gap between academic theories and real-world applications in the field of sexual psychology.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 22). Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Professor Justin Lehmiller on Sexology and Human Sexuality [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/lehmiller
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Freedom From Codependency
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024
I recently sat down with Scott Jacobsen from The Good Men Project to talk about my new program for codependents: “ Self Leadership for Codependents”. You can read the full interview by clicking the link below.
In an upcoming interview with Dr. Nicholas Jenner, a seasoned therapist and coach with over 20 years of experience, we explore his new program, “Self Leadership for Codependents.” Read more HERE
Discover Dr. Jenner’s Intensive Therapy, available on demand at your own pace. Subscribe to Dr. Jenner’s 13-week Self-Leadership Program specifically designed for codependents. This program focuses on cultivating awareness and taking actionable steps towards personal growth and autonomy. Start your journey to self-leadership and empowerment with expert guidance and support. Sign up HERE
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Online Therapist
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/19
I recently sat down with Scott Jacobsen from The Good Men Project to talk about my new program for codependents: “ Self Leadership for Codependents”. You can read the full interview by clicking the link below.
In an upcoming interview with Dr. Nicholas Jenner, a seasoned therapist and coach with over 20 years of experience, we explore his new program, “Self Leadership for Codependents.” Read more HERE
Discover Dr. Jenner’s Intensive Therapy, available on demand at your own pace. Subscribe to Dr. Jenner’s 13-week Self-Leadership Program specifically designed for codependents. This program focuses on cultivating awareness and taking actionable steps towards personal growth and autonomy. Start your journey to self-leadership and empowerment with expert guidance and support. Sign up HERE
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 2, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview features Scott Douglas Jacobsen engaging in a profound discussion with Tomáš Perna on the simulation of human intelligence through artificial neural networks (ANNs) and its implications for the development of genuine artificial intelligence (AI). Perna delves into the intricate relationship between intelligent processes and neural network domains, introducing the concept of MACP (Manner of Assigning Coordinates to Processes) as a pivotal yet enigmatic mechanism governing intelligent behavior. The conversation explores the integration of quantum mechanics, particularly the Schrödinger equation, into neural network modeling to understand information transmission at the synaptic level. Perna also discusses the challenges associated with interpreting intelligent phenomena beyond conventional language frameworks and the potential role of Klein Gordon Equation (KGE) in optimizing ANN architectures. The dialogue highlights the theoretical complexities and practical considerations in bridging neural networks with quantum principles, underscoring the need for advanced research and collaboration to advance the frontier of real AI development.
Keywords: AI Development, Artificial Neural Networks, Human Intelligence Simulation, Information Transmission, Intelligent Observation, Klein Gordon Equation, MACP, Quantum Mechanics, Schrödinger Equation, Synaptic Slots
Introduction
In this insightful interview conducted on January 2, 2025, Jacobsen and Perna engage in a deep exploration of the methodologies and theoretical frameworks underpinning the pursuit of real AI through artificial neural networks (ANNs). Perna elucidates the concept that intelligent processes are localized within specific domains of the cerebral neural network, governed by an elusive mechanism known as MACP (Manner of Assigning Coordinates to Processes). He further integrates principles from quantum mechanics, proposing that the Schrödinger equation can serve as a mathematical model for the observable electronic states within neural networks, thereby bridging the gap between information transmission and intelligent behavior. The discussion also touches upon the potential of Klein Gordon Equation (KGE) in optimizing ANN architectures to achieve an AI-horizon, while addressing the financial and practical challenges inherent in this advanced theoretical approach.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Tomáš Perna
Section 1: Introduction to NNs, MACP, ATRs, and the Schrödinger Equation
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hi Tomáš! It’s been a long time since we’ve had an ANN chat! Let us get on with it. How is the simulation of human intelligence in artificial neural networks the correct manner in which to pursue the development of real AI?
Tomáš Perna: The intelligent processes take place in certain domains of the cerebral neural network (NN). So, the “coordinates” of any intelligent process occupy a corresponding domain of NN and the reference frame of this process can be found, if the manner of how the domain is assigned to the process (in short MACP). Nobody knows, how it can be done. MACP is not a part of the thinking process and simply stands thus outside of any language, in which it is thought. We can only assume that the MACP is an information that is transcendent with respect to the thinking process languages. So, consequently, we introduce a transcendent function that could be studied from the information transmission point of view. And you know that the basic role at an information transmission the electric charge or a distribution of electric dipoles within the synaptic slots in the NN-case play. So, man, we have a task to study the electric charge behavior with respect to a transmission to our considered transcendent function. In this way, we get the wave function without any intelligent thinking process language interpretation possibility associated with an electric charge that, in the first most simple degree, satisfies the Schrödinger equation thought as an MACP transmission equation with respect to an intelligent observation of phenomena, which such a transmission could emerge within the synaptic slots of NN. These slots are thought of as the above mentioned domains of the intelligent process’s course. – Many synaptic slots, many electron system observable states as the solutions of the Schrödinger equation. – Very roughly described, you have just obtained the Shrödinger equation as a mathematical model of the observable electronic states of NN. Such the equation thus becomes characteristics of your intelligent observation and thinking instrument usable within synaptic slots. Point. Problems with interpretations of the observed phenomena in the thinking process languages are now seemingly generated by the wave function, where your languages ansatz should be completely forgotten and these “problems” are very natural consequence of the MACP.
Now, you can see that the Schrödinger equation is silent, it cannot speak in any natural language. Taking the machine language that is isomorphic to the considered thinking process language up to the wave function interpretation, you can obtain certain artificial solutions of the Schrödinger equation which exist with respect to the artificial thinking process representations (ATR). These are already the ANN- algorithms creating the horizon of observables-considering manner coupled with the Schrödinger equation, very schematically expressed. We say that the quantum states of aNN lay on the ATR- horizon of the Schrödinger equation. Optimizing the aNN- architecture, you should control them by means of the KGE, such that the AI-horizon can be found.
That is, however, another more complicated story and who will pay the money for it? Why? Since there are some keys, which could help the guys from the OpenAI (e.g.) already without anything for us. Therefore, I will be silent up to any substantiated possible KGE-conversation.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Tomáš Perna offers an intricate examination of the theoretical and methodological challenges in simulating human intelligence through artificial neural networks (ANNs). Perna introduces the concept of MACP (Manner of Assigning Coordinates to Processes) as a foundational yet enigmatic mechanism that governs the localization of intelligent processes within the neural network. This discussion highlights the importance of transcendent functions, suggesting that these operate beyond traditional linguistic frameworks and could provide a pathway to understanding intelligence at a fundamental level.
Methods
The conversation took place on January 2, 2025, and was subsequently published on January 15, 2025. A structured interview format was utilized to enable an in-depth exploration of the theoretical and practical aspects of artificial neural networks and their relation to real AI development. The interview was meticulously transcribed and organized into thematic sections, ensuring clarity and coherence while facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the topics discussed.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6). January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tomáš Perna on ANNs and More (6) [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perna-6
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: December 29, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview explores the insights of Jonathan Driscoll, Co-Founder and President of Escaparium, a leading escape room company based in Laval, Quebec, in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The discussion delves into the evolution of escape rooms—from simple puzzle hunts to fully immersive, cinematic experiences—highlighting how storytelling, actor involvement, and innovative puzzle design contribute to their success. Driscoll reflects on the significance of winning top international accolades, most notably the number 1 game globally at the 2024 Top Escape Rooms Project Enthusiasts’ Choice Awards (TERPECA) for “Magnifico’s Circus.” Key topics include the role of meticulous theming, the importance of creating a lived-in narrative, and the economic impact of escape room tourism, with travelers visiting Escaparium from around the world. This conversation provides a comprehensive look at how continued innovation and immersion propel the escape room industry forward, redefining entertainment on a global scale.
Jonathan Driscoll is the Co-Founder and President of Escaparium, an internationally acclaimed escape room enterprise that started in 2016 in Laval, Quebec. Under Driscoll’s leadership, Escaparium has expanded to multiple locations, creating over 30 immersive and story-driven escape games. One of its signature experiences, Magnifico’s Circus, was recently awarded the top spot at the 2024 Top Escape Rooms Project Enthusiasts’ Choice Awards (TERPECA), placing Escaparium firmly on the global map of must-play escape rooms. In this interview, conducted on December 29, 2024 (and published on January 15, 2025), Driscoll shares the company’s origin story, from his initial fascination with escape rooms in Florida to the growth of Escaparium as a Canadian leader in immersive entertainment. He touches on the logistical and creative challenges in crafting high-quality rooms, how actors elevate the overall experience, and the influence of places like Disney and Universal Studios on their vision for the future of immersive attractions. Driscoll also addresses the emergence of escape room tourism, with enthusiasts traveling worldwide to experience top-ranked games.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Jonathan Driscoll
Section 1: Evolution of Celebrity Behavior
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So here we are with Jonathan Driscoll. We’re going to talk about Escaparium. I learned that Escaparium won the top escape room award in the world. First of all, I didn’t know this was a thing.
Second, it’s cool. Third, I have participated in a couple of escape rooms in my time and have found them enjoyable. They’re just so different, and they were in Eastern Canada when I was there. So, what’s your general journey into escape rooms?
Jonathan Driscoll: Well, my journey resembled that of many other owners. The first escape room I played was in Florida. I heard about these things and initially thought about an escape room. I talked to my wife about it even before I knew they existed—we discussed it after watching the movie “Maze Runner.”
We thought, “What if we created some experience where people had to navigate through rooms with moving walls and other challenges? You must solve something in each room before moving on to the next.” It’s funny that we came up with something similar independently. We discovered existing escape rooms, went to Florida, played one, and then played several more there because we loved it so much. I was looking for a career change, and we returned home ready to start our venture.
We began looking for a location and just started from there. That’s it. We began with some subpar escape rooms, especially one of them. We always say, “Oh, that was our ugly duckling.” It wasn’t great, but we learned a lot from it. We’ve travelled worldwide, conducted extensive research, talked to customers, and played many escape rooms.
We even visit Disney in Florida regularly for inspiration. So yes, our concept sprang from all those experiences and the mistakes people make when designing escape rooms.
Jacobsen: What lessons did you learn when you first developed escape rooms that were not as good as they are now?
Driscoll: That’s a good question and could have many answers. There are many things you learn. The thing about this industry is that I started almost at the same time as everyone else, at least in Canada. Escape rooms started a little earlier than us in the US and Japan, so there wasn’t much to base ourselves on.
When nothing exists, you’re going through each iteration or each game, trying to learn from it by listening to customers and asking, “What can we improve? How can we do this better?”
Most of the time, the issue is that most people don’t know what they want or have a good idea of why something isn’t working. That’s the most difficult part because they often say, “Oh, I don’t like this,” but that’s not the problem. I’ll give you an example. I conducted some polls on Facebook, and more than once, I was confused by the answers. I asked people, “What did you like or dislike about your experience?”
By linear, I mean where there’s just one puzzle after another, and by nonlinear, where you might have three puzzles at once in one section and then four puzzles at once in the next. This allows players to separate and ensures there’s always something to do.
95% of people say they don’t like linear rooms. But the thing is, it’s not that they don’t like linear rooms—it’s that poorly designed linear rooms give a bad experience. Poor design creates issues that are hard to identify or resolve, especially when players don’t even realize the problem or what they do and don’t enjoy.
All that misinformation makes it difficult to improve and enhance the experience. There are easier ways to gather feedback, though, using evidence-based approaches. For example, we can draw insights from puzzles, game mechanics, or video games, as game design is not new.
There are parallels between escape rooms and other forms of gaming, but there are also significant differences. For instance, online video games differ greatly from escape rooms in terms of their physical and interactive nature. Addressing these differences and evolving designs is one of the challenges that helped us reach the top.
Section 3: Public Interest in Celebrities
Jacobsen: What logistical aspects of escape rooms are the most difficult to construct or plan?
Driscoll: The puzzles are essentially the gateway to the next scene. That’s how we approach it now. It wasn’t always like that. Initially, escape rooms were just a series of puzzles thrown together. The next step in evolution was creating escape rooms with a cohesive theme, ensuring the puzzles matched that theme.
After that, the next generation of puzzles went further—they had to fit the story and theme and help advance the narrative. These puzzles had to contribute to the story, the characters, and the player’s role as the protagonist. That’s the hardest part—designing puzzles or tasks that fit seamlessly into the story and make the story progress in a meaningful way.
Of course, building the sets and everything else takes time. Still, the intellectual effort in crafting puzzles or tasks that drive the story forward is the most challenging. It’s about making players feel like they’re living in a movie. That has always been the goal, but we’re much closer to achieving it now than ever.
Before, many escape rooms—some still today—focused solely on puzzles. Players enter, solve puzzles, hear music, get an introduction at the beginning, and maybe some dialogue at the end. That doesn’t make you feel like you’re in a movie. What we’re doing now is on a completely different level, where players truly feel like they’re part of a cinematic experience.
So if these puzzles pull you out of the experience—if they don’t make sense or don’t fit—they break immersion. That’s the hardest part. Some puzzles take months to design because finding something that works is difficult.
Section 4: Celebrity Activism and Responsibility
Jacobsen: What about interactivity? I didn’t experience much of it when I did escape rooms several years ago, but I didn’t pick the right ones.
Driscoll: Back then, there wasn’t an interaction between players and actors or workers. If that, 0.1% of escape rooms had this kind of interaction.
Jacobsen: What are some cues for bringing interactivity into the experience to make it more engaging? For instance, older escape rooms often featured linear puzzles with some background music. They didn’t feel like a story. Now, it feels like you’re immersed in a movie. This can even include live actors. When did live actors become part of escape rooms, and how has that been integrated more thoroughly?
Driscoll: I knew nothing about acting when I started—though I know more now. It was baby steps at first. We had a few staff members who were more experienced in acting, so we started by slowly integrating their expertise into our rooms.
We revisited some of our less engaging experiences. We thought, “What if we add a bit of acting here, maybe for the introduction?” It could make the players feel undercover or on some secret mission. But I didn’t want to stand there and say, “Hey, you guys are undercover cops.” That would feel forced and unconvincing.
Instead, we worked on creating a more immersive atmosphere from the start. For instance, in the lobby, actors might say, “You’re undercover cops heading into a dangerous situation,” to draw players into the narrative subtly. Getting people fully invested initially was hard, but acting was a big step toward achieving that.
We started small, gradually adding more acting elements to each new game and even updating older games. Now, our latest experiences are fully interactive. Players aren’t just passive witnesses to a story—they’re part of the action. They feel like their decisions matter, like they’re influencing the outcome of the narrative.
Our latest experience hit the mark in this regard. It was much harder to design but more fun for the players and the actors. This interactivity, where players feel essential to the story, has been a major factor in getting us to where we are today.
Section 5: Intelligence and Success in Acting
Jacobsen: You recently won the number one award for an escape room. What were the criteria for that recognition? What were the comments on winning? What are the reasons behind it, and what’s the feeling of being number one globally for something that has been around long enough for the competition to be significant? The awards must mean a lot since they’re quite competitive.
Driscoll: Yes, there are around 55,000 escape rooms globally. And I’ve played most, well, most-ish, of the top escape rooms in the world—at least more than 50% of the top 100 globally, which is pretty cool. So, I have a good understanding of what’s out there.
The TERPECA Awards award we won is significant because it’s considered the most prestigious by enthusiasts and industry professionals alike. When I say “considered,” people plan trips around these rankings. For instance, we’re heading to Athens, Spain, and Munich when we book our trips, like the one at the end of January. Why Athens? Because many of the top-rated escape rooms are in Athens, all over Spain, and near Munich. We’re basing our trip on playing the top-ranked rooms in those areas—maybe the top 150.
The awards are prestigious because enthusiasts created them out of passion for the industry. There’s no financial incentive; the organizers have no financial interests. Their goal is to provide the most honest and respected rankings. That makes them so important—they’re driven by love for the industry, not money.
Here’s how it works: If you’ve played 100 escape rooms, you can apply to vote. Each country has representatives, called ambassadors, and some countries have more than one. It’s still a tight-knit community, so we generally know the people who have played more than 100 rooms. The ambassador verifies whether someone has genuinely played the required number of rooms and ensures they’re not affiliated with any of the companies they might vote for.
For instance, I’m allowed to vote but can’t for my games. My parents can’t vote for my games. My employees can’t vote, and neither can their families. These rules are in place to ensure fairness and eliminate conflicts of interest. While no system is entirely free of bias—everyone has preferences, and total objectivity isn’t possible—the process is as honest and transparent as possible.
Even if I don’t always agree with the rankings 100%, I can understand why a room is rated a certain way. For example, I might not love horror or fantasy genres as much. However, I can still recognize and appreciate why a room is ranked sixth globally. It’s about respecting the effort and creativity that go into these experiences.
I could see what people see in it. So, yes, getting first place was definitely on our bucket list. We put everything we had into this project. We invested $1,300,000, and our team of 15 full-timers, plus five part-timers, worked for about a year and three months. That doesn’t sound like a long time, but with 15 to 20 people working consistently, that’s a huge number of person-hours. Plus, the conceptual work started even earlier.
We’re incredibly proud. The whole team was super proud of what we achieved. When it was time to watch the live announcement on YouTube, about 50 people gathered to cheer us on. It was truly special, and we’re proud to have brought this recognition to Canada. North America isn’t as advanced in escape rooms as Europe. Globally, Europe is way ahead of us in the escape room industry, so this win is something to be especially proud of.
We also had another room rank number three, which is amazing. I don’t know if that will ever be repeated, but we’re very happy.
Section 6: Charisma and Social Skills in Success
Jacobsen: Well, we’re doing this interview on December 29th, 2024, at the end of the year. Since you’re ranked at the top, looking ahead, where do you see escape rooms going? What is the next evolution of escape room challenges? Will we incorporate VR and other technologies into this more? Personally, or based on global trends, what do you think?
Driscoll: That’s a great point. Personally and globally, the trajectory is similar. Escape rooms are so sought after and special because they don’t rely on screens. They’re one of the only experiences where you can go and truly live an adventure. Back then, it was always video games or living through characters in movies.
We did experiment with VR escape rooms—they exist, and we had them for a while—but we eventually removed them. We’re not passionate about VR, which goes against why escape rooms are so popular. The appeal of escape rooms lies in their tactile, real-world nature.
The evolution of escape rooms is closely aligned with the evolution of rides at Disney or Universal Studios. These parks are masters at creating immersive experiences. There’s only so much thrill you can offer, but what makes them timeless is their ability to push the boundaries of immersion. That’s why Disney and Universal are always full, no matter the state of the economy—they’ve mastered creating an immersive experience.
We’re trying to achieve that, pushing those limits with Magnifico, our new experience. We’ve taken immersive entertainment as far as possible, though there’s always room to improve and push further. I don’t think the core path will change much—we’re on the right track. You can look at Disney and Universal, who are years ahead of us, and see where they’re going. That’s the direction we’re headed as well.
If you’ve been to Disney and experienced Rise of the Resistance, the Star Wars ride, you know how incredible it is. What they’ve done there is amazing. The direction they’re going in is exactly what we’re aiming for. That’s precisely where our new experiences are headed. We’ll not deviate much from that path.
I could play these rooms for years and never tire because they’re so immersive and different. Each time feels like being in a new movie, and you don’t get bored watching a new movie. While we always strive to evolve and improve, we’re not planning to deviate from where we are today.
We’re still heading in a specific direction, and since Disney and Universal are moving in the same direction—as is much of the entertainment industry—it reinforces that we’re on the right path. I don’t think the core of what we’re doing will change much. It’ll continue evolving and improving, but the essence will remain the same. For example, if you play Magnifico now, I believe the top escape rooms in 10 years will resemble what we’re doing today.
Section 7: Balancing Public and Private Personas
Jacobsen: Jonathan, do you have any final thoughts or feelings you’d like to share with readers about being number one in the world and all the hard work you’ve put in over the years?
Driscoll: For us, this is truly a dream come true. When we started nine years ago, I never imagined we’d be where we are today. Even six years ago—or four or five years ago—I couldn’t have predicted this level of success. Even two years ago, the new experience we’ve created seemed beyond our reach. What we’ve accomplished, especially with this new experience, feels surreal.
What I’m particularly proud of is how we’ve contributed to creating a new industry of tourism that didn’t exist before. More and more people are travelling specifically to experience escape rooms. Just today, a group from the UK flew in for three days to play our rooms and is heading back immediately after. That’s becoming increasingly common.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that people come from abroad every week, some from very far away. Of course, we also get visitors from closer locations, but the number of international travellers is growing. This has brought us recognition from governments, tourism offices, and others who now see the benefits of having companies like ours in their cities. It’s creating tourism destinations, and we’re very proud of that. We want to keep pushing forward.
There’s no limit to where we can go. For now, we’re living a dream, and it’s incredible to say that this passion comes not just from the team creating the experiences but also from the actors who bring them to life. Without the actors, it would just be a dead world. They’re the ones who breathe life into it.
So, yes, those are my final thoughts. Thank you.
Section 8: Success Beyond Social Competence
Jacobsen: Excellent, Jonathan. Thank you so much for your time today.
Driscoll: Awesome. Thank you. Nice meeting you.
Jacobsen: Likewise. Bye-bye.
Driscoll: Bye-bye.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Jonathan Driscoll, Co-Founder and President of Escaparium, provides a comprehensive exploration of the evolution and current state of the escape room industry. Driscoll elucidates the transformation of escape rooms from basic puzzle-solving activities to sophisticated, immersive experiences that rival cinematic adventures. A pivotal theme is the emphasis on storytelling and thematic coherence, where each puzzle not only serves as a challenge but also advances the overarching narrative, thereby enhancing player immersion. Driscoll highlights the critical role of live actors in creating dynamic interactions, transforming participants from passive observers into active protagonists within the story. This integration of acting and narrative depth distinguishes Escaparium’s offerings and contributes significantly to their international acclaim.
Another significant aspect discussed is the methodological approach to designing escape rooms. Driscoll underscores the importance of iterative development, drawing lessons from early, less successful endeavors to refine and elevate subsequent experiences. Customer feedback, though sometimes ambiguous, is meticulously analyzed to inform design improvements, ensuring that each room meets high standards of engagement and immersion. The adoption of evidence-based design principles, inspired by video game mechanics and immersive entertainment venues like Disney and Universal Studios, further underscores Escaparium’s commitment to innovation and excellence.
The conversation also delves into the economic and cultural impact of award recognition, particularly the Top Escape Rooms Project Enthusiasts’ Choice Awards (TERPECA). Achieving the #1 ranking with “Magnifico’s Circus” not only validates Escaparium’s creative efforts but also positions the company as a leader in a highly competitive global market. This accolade has spurred growth in escape room tourism, with international visitors specifically traveling to experience Escaparium’s top-rated games, thereby contributing to local economies and positioning escape rooms as legitimate tourism attractions.
Looking forward, Driscoll envisions the continued evolution of escape rooms in alignment with advancements in immersive entertainment. While rejecting the integration of virtual reality to preserve the tactile, real-world appeal, Escaparium aims to push the boundaries of immersion through enhanced storytelling, set design, and interactive elements. The aspiration to emulate and innovate beyond the immersive experiences offered by theme parks like Disney and Universal Studios signifies a strategic direction focused on creating timeless and engaging adventures that resonate with diverse audiences.
Overall, the interview highlights the convergence of creativity, technological innovation, and strategic excellence in shaping the future of the escape room industry. Escaparium’s success serves as a case study in leveraging immersive storytelling and interactive design to create compelling entertainment experiences that captivate and inspire global audiences.
Methods
This interview was conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, a journalist with In-Sight Publishing based in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada. The conversation took place on December 29, 2024, and was subsequently published on January 15, 2025. The methodology employed was a structured interview format, allowing for a focused yet flexible dialogue that enabled in-depth exploration of key topics related to the escape room industry. The interview was meticulously transcribed and organized into thematic sections to facilitate clarity and coherence.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jonathan-driscoll
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jonathan-driscoll.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jonathan-driscoll.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jonathan-driscoll.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Jonathan Driscoll on Escaparium and the TERPECA AWARDS 2024.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/jonathan-driscoll.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 14, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview explores the insights of Rick Rosner, a seasoned television writer and producer, in conversation with Scott Jacobsen. The discussion delves into the evolution of celebrity behavior from the 1970s to the present, highlighting the transition towards more responsible conduct. Jacobsen reflects on the dynamics of fame as a tool for creative endeavors and the balance celebrities maintain between their public personas and private lives. Key topics include the role of charisma and social skills in achieving success, the importance of authenticity and ethical behavior, and the impact of political climates on public figures. The interview also examines the motivations behind celebrity interviews, the public’s fascination with personal relationships and vulnerabilities of celebrities, and the shift towards more mindful and ethical behavior in modern celebrity culture. Additionally, Jacobsen shares personal anecdotes illustrating the influence of charisma and the diverse paths to success within the entertainment industry. This conversation provides a comprehensive understanding of contemporary celebrity dynamics and the factors contributing to sustained public admiration and professional longevity.
Keywords: Authenticity, Charisma, Celebrity Culture, Ethical Behavior, Entertainment Industry, Fame Dynamics, Media Engagement, Political Influence, Public Persona, Public Relations, Social Skills, Success Factors
Introduction
Rick Rosner, a notable television writer and producer with contributions to acclaimed shows such as “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Man Show,” shares his perspectives on the shifting landscape of celebrity culture in an in-depth interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. With a career spanning various unconventional roles and recognized for his high IQ and diverse experiences, Rosner provides valuable insights into how fame is leveraged creatively, the balance between public and private identities, and the evolving expectations placed upon celebrities. This interview, conducted in January 14, 2025 and published on January 15, 2025, captures Rosner’s reflections on the maturation of celebrity behavior, the role of authenticity in public life, and the intricate interplay between personal ethics and professional success in the entertainment industry. The conversation also touches upon the influence of political climates on celebrities’ public stances and the enduring public fascination with the personal lives of public figures. Through personal anecdotes and professional observations, Rosner elucidates the complexities of maintaining relevance and integrity in a highly scrutinized and dynamic media environment.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Rick Rosner
Section 1: Evolution of Celebrity Behavior
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In 2024, you suggested I start interviewing celebrities or media personalities. Since then, I have received emails with specific hooks pitching these individuals. Did your suggestion and the subsequent publication of my work contribute to this? I am not certain. However, celebrity interviews tend to generate the most excitement. This is demonstrated by the long-standing success of People Magazine, which has been in publication since 1974, surpassing its 50th anniversary. With celebrities, there is a natural advantage—audiences are familiar with them and want to learn more. Since the Trump era, and perhaps even earlier, public life has become increasingly politicized.
Rick Rosner: As a result, celebrities often take public stances that attract significant interest. For instance, Taylor Swift has adeptly shown her political sympathies without overly politicizing her image. Meanwhile, it was recently reported that Carrie Underwood might perform at a politically charged event, which sparked backlash. In a world oversaturated with content, celebrity interviews remain highly engaging.
Jacobsen: What do celebrities seek from interviews when the focus is not on promoting their next project, in your experience?
Rosner: Celebrities often seek to be understood as multidimensional individuals beyond their professional accomplishments. This perspective is often successful. For example, Pamela Anderson is making a significant comeback with The Last Showgirl. Interviews have highlighted her strong performance and intellectual engagement with acting as a craft, moving beyond her previous image as a star of Baywatch or someone associated with public controversies.
Audiences tend to support celebrities who appear relatable and genuine. On the other hand, they are equally fascinated by celebrities behaving poorly. Recently, Mel Gibson appeared on a podcast promoting Ivermectin as a cancer cure, spreading misinformation. This drew criticism, yet people would likely be equally interested if Gibson changed their perspective and demonstrated a more informed and positive approach.
Section 3: Public Interest in Celebrities
Jacobsen: Why are people so interested in celebrities?
Rosner: One reason is that we already know much of their stories. Another is that we want them to be deserving of our interest. Celebrities have immense resources, agency, and wealth, and we want to see how they use their power.
We cheer for their relationships, even when we expect them to fail. For example, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck recently got back together. This might be their third time as a couple. People want it to work out but are intrigued by its potential to fall apart.
J.Lo is known as a diva but doesn’t seem unkind. Despite some personal struggles, Ben Affleck comes across as intelligent, kind, and fun. People generally want good things for him. He was married to Jennifer Garner, who is widely respected and seems genuinely decent.
When we see celebrities with every advantage face challenges, we question how the rest of us will manage. What does that mean for everyone else if they struggle to make relationships or personal goals work despite their resources?
Section 4: Celebrity Activism and Responsibility
Jacobsen: Which celebrities have impressed you with their commitment to causes outside Hollywood, even after achieving fame?
Rosner: Any celebrity who becomes knowledgeable and active in a cause stands out. Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, speaks about environmental issues and seems reasonably well-informed. However, he’s criticized for using yachts and private planes, contributing to the pollution he advocates against.
George Clooney also comes to mind. He is knowledgeable and upstanding and has championed causes like protecting the oceans. Additionally, Clooney has actively supported Democratic political candidates and worked to nudge President Biden on policy matters.
When George Clooney exited the race for office, reactions varied. However, he comes from a political family—his father ran for office—so he understands the landscape. He also seems like a genuinely decent person. When he became rich and famous, he gave each of his friends a million dollars, reasoning that if he could enjoy financial relief, why shouldn’t his friends share that comfort?
This generosity reflects someone who values others. My former boss was similarly charitable. I know he’s incredibly informed from years of working with him, particularly on random subjects. He’s highly tech-savvy, always online, and can quickly educate himself on nearly any topic. Many celebrities share these traits—surprisingly knowledgeable and smart, which benefits them in the entertainment industry.
Section 5: Intelligence and Success in Acting
Jacobsen: Do you think intelligence correlates with acting success?
Rosner: To a degree, yes. Successful actors often exhibit intelligence because it enhances their craft. While some may succeed early in their careers due to extraordinary physical attractiveness, sustaining a long-term career often requires intelligence, intuition, or hard work.
Jacobsen: How would you assess their social astuteness and emotional sensitivity?
Rosner: The entertainment industry is full of individuals with exceptional social skills, almost to the point of what could be called “reverse autism.” Many performers have heightened social understanding and intuition, which correlate with success. However, these qualities aren’t mandatory—some succeed without them.
For example, we attended a talk with Jesse Eisenberg, an actor, writer, and director. He wrote and starred in a film about cousins retracing their grandmother’s life during the Holocaust alongside Kieran Culkin. In the movie, his character has OCD, which mirrors Eisenberg’s experiences. He used rubber bands around his wrist, snapping them to stay grounded in the film and real life.
He was candid about the challenges of making that film compared to others in which he was simply a hired actor. It became clear that a creative individual who loves making art, working hard, and focusing on the craft rather than seeking widespread recognition.
Jesse Eisenberg, for example, seems to enjoy making films more than embracing the perks of being a movie star. He mentioned that being a star makes it easier to get projects funded. He can secure financing more effectively by attaching his name to a screenplay. However, he doesn’t seem drawn to stardom’s glamour or hedonistic aspects. For him, fame is a tool to achieve creative goals rather than an indulgence.
Section 6: Charisma and Social Skills in Success
Jacobsen: Do charisma and schmoozing play a significant role in success, or can performers manage without them?
Rosner: It certainly helps, but it’s not essential. George Clooney, for instance, is naturally charming and charismatic, whether he intends to be or not.
I once worked as a doorman at the Sagebrush Cantina. One of my duties was to ensure no one parked in a specific space out front. It looked like a handicapped spot but was reserved for the fire marshal if he needed to check occupancy limits. If we exceeded those limits, the fire marshal could shut us down or start visiting regularly, which would have been bad for business.
One day, a car full of older adults parked in that spot. An older man, probably in his late 70s, got out with his wife, who was walking with a cane. I approached them to explain that they couldn’t park there. My job required me to be firm, even unpleasant, if necessary. However, as the man spoke to me, he exuded a charming, twinkling charisma. He pleaded politely, explaining his wife’s difficulty walking.
Against my better judgment, I let them park there. Afterward, I questioned myself, wondering why I had caved so easily. I couldn’t figure out if the man were deliberately persuasive or if it was just his natural demeanour. Later, I realized it was Lloyd Bridges. His charm was undeniable, whether intentional or not.
Even in his old age, Lloyd Bridges remained a charming and charismatic figure. As the father of Jeff Bridges and a star in his own right, his charisma was undeniable. It’s not a physical force like in physics but a real interpersonal force that can influence people profoundly.
This reminds me of seeing actors like Sam Elliott, who is now likely the same age Lloyd Bridges was when I met him. In his late seventies, Sam Elliott remains a familiar and charismatic figure. If you Google “Sam Elliott and wife,” you’ll see this iconic actor, who has been in movies for over 55 years, married to a petite, older woman. It’s striking because we associate stars with immense social leverage. Yet, many remain in long-term relationships with partners who seem like “regular” people.
Jacobsen: Why do you think that contrast feels unusual?
Rosner: It seems odd because we expect celebrities to maximize their social capital in all aspects of life. However, many have long-term partners who’ve been with them through the highs and lows of their careers. They’re human beings first and love their partners for reasons beyond surface appearances or public perception.
I used to work out at Gold’s Gym in North Hollywood, where I met Albert Beckles, a legendary bodybuilder. Beckles, who might now be in his mid-80s or older, was incredibly fit. Even in his seventies, he maintained a physique with around four percent body fat. Despite his age, he looked youthful, with a shaved head and a ripped body.
Occasionally, I’d see his wife or girlfriend, a petite older white woman, and their pairing seemed unusual at first glance. With his youthful appearance and powerful presence, Beckles contrasted starkly with his partner, who looked her age. However, their relationship likely spanned decades—they probably met when they were younger and grew old together. She naturally aged while he maintained a youthful appearance due to his lifestyle. It highlights how their bond was built on something deeper than appearances.
Section 7: Balancing Public and Private Personas
Jacobsen: Do you think celebrities have an innate duality—a personal identity and a public persona—that helps them succeed?
Rosner: Absolutely. Celebrities who reach the highest levels of fame often balance two distinct identities: their authentic selves and their celebrity personas. The way they manage this dynamic varies greatly. Some embrace their celebrity status fully, using it to fuel their careers. In contrast, others prioritize maintaining their identity and relationships. Success often depends on how well they can navigate these two facets of their lives.
These days, most celebrities manage their public lives well. We’re no longer in the age of “celebrity assholes,” which was more prevalent in the 1970s. For instance, when I was on the writing staff of a major show, the culture wasn’t about excess or indulgence. Instead of doing cocaine, we were taking fibre gummies to deal with the sedentary lifestyle of long hours at our desks.
This era has more celebrities who behave responsibly and navigate fame with maturity. I watched my former boss evolve from being largely a radio personality to one of America’s 100–150 most famous people. Despite this rise in fame, he didn’t lose his decency.
Jacobsen: How did he manage the pressures of fame while staying grounded?
Rosner: He didn’t engage in exploitative behaviour or use his position to harm others. He remained charitable and reasonable, though he enjoyed playful banter and asking awkward questions as part of his natural curiosity. His increased agency and responsibilities came with new challenges—paying for a publicist, manager, and agent and managing media interactions carefully.
However, he became less cautious in expressing his views during the Trump era. As a decent person, he felt compelled to speak out about alarming events in America. For example, he was deeply upset by the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where over 50 people were killed and more than 500 were injured. As a Las Vegas native, this tragedy hit close to home.
Traditionally, late-night hosts avoided political commentary to maintain a broad audience. But my boss, like others, felt he had to address critical issues, even at the risk of alienating some viewers.
Jacobsen: Do you think this shift reflects a broader change in celebrity culture?
Rosner: Yes. We’re in an era where most celebrities manage their public personas carefully and behave with greater responsibility. Of course, no one is perfect, and every celebrity has moments of controversy. Still, the overall trend is toward more mindful and ethical behaviour.
Celebrities, like anyone else, can occasionally be caught acting poorly. However, we are in an era where they are generally more responsible. This may be because the public is better informed, as a lack of information often leads to poor decisions. In the 1970s, I was certainly immature, as were many celebrities at the time.
Section 8: Success Beyond Social Competence
Jacobsen: What about people in Hollywood who aren’t socially competent? Can they still succeed?
Rosner: Yes, it’s possible. I’m not particularly socially competent, but I managed to build a career. Part of my success was due to a writing partnership with someone who excelled socially—what I’d call “reverse autism.” He handled the social dynamics, which was helpful, even if it wasn’t always easy.
Additionally, you can succeed without social prowess if you’re good at what you do. I worked hard and developed skills that compensated for my shortcomings. For example, I became comfortable admitting personal flaws and turning them into humour, similar to what stand-up comedians do. If my jokes didn’t land, I could still make people laugh by being candid about embarrassing topics.
Many talented individuals in entertainment, some on the spectrum or socially unconventional, succeed because of their competence, creativity, and hard work.
Jacobsen: What about people at the lower levels of entertainment, like production assistants or interns?
Rosner: At the entry-level, I’ve noticed a mix of talent and incompetence. Many interns or PAs I encountered early in my career were hired through connections rather than merit. Some were unreliable or lacked dedication. This often allowed competent and hardworking individuals—even unconventional—to stand out and advance.
Over time, the less capable individuals tend to be weeded out. In the early stages, though, it’s possible to succeed as a “weirdo” if you’re reliable, competent, hardworking, or possess a couple of those qualities.
Jacobsen: What if someone is found to be unethical or fraudulent?
Rosner: I’ve been fortunate to work with mostly ethical people. While dishonesty exists in any industry, I’ve rarely encountered it directly. Ethical behaviour tends to matter more as people advance, where reputations carry greater weight.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for the time, Rick.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner offers insightful perspectives on the evolving landscape of celebrity culture. Rosner highlights a significant shift from the reckless behavior of the 1970s to the more responsible and ethically conscious conduct of today’s celebrities. This transformation is attributed to increased public accountability and the pervasive influence of social media, which hold public figures to higher standards.
A central theme is the strategic use of fame as a tool for creative and social endeavors rather than personal indulgence. Rosner emphasizes that successful celebrities balance their public personas with their authentic selves, fostering relatability and long-term admiration. Authenticity and ethical behavior emerge as crucial factors for sustaining public trust and mitigating controversies, aligning with the broader societal demand for integrity in public figures.
The role of charisma and social skills is discussed as beneficial but not essential for success in the entertainment industry. Rosner argues that talent, hard work, and authenticity are equally important, allowing individuals to thrive even without exceptional social prowess. This is exemplified through anecdotes about charismatic figures like Lloyd Bridges and Sam Elliott, illustrating how genuine personal qualities can enhance public appeal.
Celebrity activism is another key topic, with Rosner commending figures like Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney for their commitment to environmental and political causes. However, he also notes the scrutiny they face to ensure their actions align with their advocacies, highlighting the complexities of public advocacy.
Overall, the interview underscores the importance of balancing public image with personal integrity, leveraging fame for meaningful purposes, and adapting to the changing expectations of audiences. Rosner’s insights provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to sustained success and public admiration in the modern entertainment industry.
Methods
The interview was conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, with Rick Rosner who is known for his work on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Man Show.” The methodology employed for this interview was a semi-structured format, allowing for a flexible yet focused conversation that could delve deeply into relevant topics while accommodating spontaneous insights.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/schmollywood.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/schmollywood.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Rick Rosner on Hollywood Schmollywood.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/schmollywood.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: November 11, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview delves into the multifaceted life and scholarly pursuits of Scott Durgin, a Senior RF Design Engineer, Physics Instructor, and dedicated archaeologist. Scott shares significant personal milestones, including his recent marriage and impending fatherhood, alongside his professional endeavors and intellectual interests. The conversation explores his excavation of a geometric necropolis, the publication of his work “Arch Euclid Secret,” and his ongoing project “The Pentachoron,” which integrates Borges’ literary techniques. Scott also discusses his deep engagement with ancient geometries, mythology, and calendrical cycles, highlighting the overarching theme of “Ars est Celare Artum” (Art is to conceal art). Additionally, he provides insights into his views on the current political climate in the United States, emphasizing concerns over democratic stability. This interview offers a comprehensive understanding of Scott Durgin’s dedication to uncovering hidden geometric and symbolic patterns in history and art, as well as his reflections on balancing personal life with extensive scholarly and professional commitments.
Keywords: Archaeology, Art Concealment, Cartography, Celtic Witchery, Chronometry, Defense Engineering, Excavation, Geodetic Markers, Geometry, Hieroglyphs, Metrology, Mythology, Necropolis, Public Speaking, Religious Cycles, RF Design, Solis Sacerdotibus, Symbolism, The Pentachoron
Introduction
Scott Douglas Jacobsen conducted an in-depth interview with Scott Durgin, a multifaceted professional balancing roles as a Senior RF Design Engineer, Physics Instructor, and passionate archaeologist. The interview, published on January 15, 2025, captures Scott Durgin’s recent personal developments, including his marriage and the anticipation of his first child, alongside his extensive intellectual and excavation projects. Scott Durgin elaborates on his scholarly work, particularly his publications “Arch Euclid Secret” and “The Pentachoron,” which explore the intricate relationships between geometry, mythology, and ancient calendrical systems. Additionally, he discusses his ambitious excavation of a geometric necropolis, highlighting the challenges and discoveries involved in uncovering ancient petroglyphs and geodetic markers. The conversation also touches upon his perspectives on the evolving political landscape in the United States, reflecting his concerns over democratic principles. This interview provides a comprehensive view of Scott Durgin’s dedication to integrating ancient knowledge with modern scientific and engineering practices, as well as his efforts to balance personal life with his professional and scholarly pursuits.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Scott Durgin
Section 1: Personal Life Updates
Jacobsen: Scott, Scott here, it’s been a bit since last session. I owe you an apology for delays. This will be another “YUGE” session, but this will be done in parts, bite-size. Thank you for your immense patience with me. My questions will be piecemeal and original in some while others will build on prior responses. Let’s start light, my friend, what is newest in your life since our last session, session 3?
Durgin: Marriage recently, wife now pregnant, new discoveries, new job.
Section 2: High-IQ Societies
Jacobsen: Any developments on the high-IQ societies and high-IQ communities front?
Durgin: No.
Jacobsen: Any developments on the Giga Society of Paul Cooijmans front?
Durgin: Nothing recent other than publishing my “Arch Euclid Secret” in Thoth. Only 10 chapters so far. Just a semi-treatise on Astronomy, Chronometry, Metrology and Mythology. Should be less than 50 chapters but it’s been slow going with 2 professional jobs and my excavation craziness.
Jacobsen: Any developments on the high-IQ societies and high-IQ communities front?
Durgin: No.
Jacobsen: What about the Glia Society?
Durgin: No.
Section 3: Political Climate in the United States
Jacobsen: How is the political situation in the United States?
Durgin: A little crazy right now.
Section 4: IQ Tests and Intellectual Pursuits
Jacobsen: Have you taken any new IQ tests?
Durgin: No.
Jacobsen: Have you picked up any new languages or intellectual pursuits since last talking?
Durgin: Still working on Egyptian, getting okay at hieroglyphs! Also learning cartography because I’m mapping the geometric necropolis near my neck of the woods.
Section 5: Recent Reading
Jacobsen: Any good books lately?
Durgin: Bunch:
Got a copy of Leonardo’s geometric drawings: 3D versions of tetrahedron, cuboctahedron, etc., full page, color, in his pencil pretty cool.
Jewish Princedom in feudal France by Zuckerman
Sanchuniathan’s Phoenician history, edited/annotated by Cumberland (died in 1721) super interesting tome.
Mythical origin of the Egyptian temple by Eve A Reymond, probably my favorite. Excellent thesis published in 1969.
In last 2 years acquired and read about 48 new books, but can’t remember them now. Some more here:
Codex Rosae Crucis by Manly Hall
Book of Kells by Sullivan
Feynman Lectures on Gravitation
Geometry of Light by Leonhardt and Philbin
Myth and Symbol in ancient Egypt by Rundle Clark
Legends of the Egyptian gods by Budge
Time by Marie Louis von Franz
Section 6: Drama in Personal Life
Jacobsen: Any new drama in your life?
Durgin: Nothing crazy.
Section 7: Dominant Life Theme
Jacobsen: What is the biggest new theme in your life that I should keep in mind this time?
Durgin: Ars est Celare Artum. Absolutely 100% dominant theme, been chasing it and finding it, then being chased by it for 2 decades now. Resurrected this last October like a giant monster and mistress.
Section 8: Marriage Details
Jacobsen: How did you and the wife meet?
Durgin: Restaurant after online.
Jacobsen: How long were you two together before being married?
Durgin: 7 years, almost exact.
Jacobsen: Who proposed to whom?
Durgin: Me to her in our favorite restaurant.
Jacobsen: What was the style of the wedding?
Durgin: Celtic witchery: Outdoors under the pines with pagoda.
Jacobsen: Who had more input the ceremony and the officiation?
Durgin: She did nearly everything, I had only a few things in mind.
Jacobsen: Who did the officiation? What was the theme and the aesthetic, the food and the attire, and the location?
Durgin: Local female officiant. Uxbridge, Mass., Celtic themes. She arrived in a horse-drawn carriage with her father. Read each other personal vows. Champagne-colored tuxedo for me, white bridal gown for her, with an elegant crown on her head. Five bridesmaids in maroon gowns, my daughter was Best Man.
Section 9: Expectant Father Session
Jacobsen: When are you expecting the new child? You might want to talk to Matthew Scillitani or Rick Rosner, new dad and old dad, respectively. Any objection to a three-way session on expectant dad, new dad, and old dad?
Durgin: January; no objections.
Section 10: New Discoveries
Jacobsen: What are some of the new discoveries? That’ll be trail of gummy worms with an open can behind it.
Durgin: You mean gummy bears… tasty gummy BEARS. Admittedly the analogy disappears with the can.
Section 11: Historical Patterns and Cycles
Durgin: Backdrop: Patterns in history provide a great substrate for understanding how the future unfolds. This is especially true when those patterns can be identified with numbers, cycles. Religious adherents of the deep past used numeric cycles (planetary or astronomical orbits, eclipses mostly, so basic astrology) to record and plan their holidays, legends/stories and epochal events. The Roman empire absorbed these when conquering various cultures, and then the Holy Roman Empire inherited it. They continue to this day. The Ancient Olmecs, Toltecs and Mayans did this too, to a remarkable extent. One very important example of this I have discovered recently is the plan to co-opt the Jewish intent on rebuilding their “temple”, whose grand historical cycles (mythical really) form a nexus in 2034-2041. The Roman Catholic Church has been aware of this for centuries, so they are counting down the clock too, and helping to arrange its success by interfering in geopolitical affairs, as they have done for centuries.
From a practical standpoint, the Church had “court mathematicians” or historians, per se (probably Jesuits) who would constantly study these natural cycles and then plan their own future events so as to stamp them with an air of divine origin or authority. In most cases, the activity is to back-date mythical events (like births of gods, emperors, etc.) so as to fit a pattern. Been doing this for centuries. I’ve tracked it, learning a lot of basic history myself in the process. The many gaps I have filled in my knowledge often confirm and re-confirm; but sometimes they contradict, which is where the real learning takes place.
Just 2 examples of studies like this are Breaking the Mayan Code by Michael Coe and the book by Zuckerman referenced above.
Section 12: Solar System Cycle Discovery
Durgin: A sidebar to the above activity allowed me to uncover a potentially meaningful solar system cycle, related to the ancient Jewish (Hebrew) calendar makers and myth makers: 25925 earth years is 9,468,900 days (and about 3-1/2 extra). The nominal number is a multiple of 2338 days and 13527 days, where 2338 days is an orbital syzygy of Earth, Mars and Venus (whose relative positions repeat after such number), whereas the 13527 is an approximate eclipse cycle (+/- 1 or 2 days), not part of the Saros cycle. If one divides 9468900 by 360, the result is about 26303 days, which is 72 years and about 5 days (making up one degree). This much Hipparchus approximated in his lifetime as well, but the prevailing theories up till now fixate on a more rounded 26000 years or 25920 years or thereabouts. I have my own. NASA uses the 2338-day cycle to ensure our landers take off from Earth with the right timing to optimize the trip to Mars. I believe this cycle is related to the Chandler wobble, but have had no time or any puke grad students at my disposal to experiment. Example: about every 6.4 years it is known that the Chandler wobble experiences some sort of “reset”. A bit of literature on it, but no recollection right now. My suspicions are raised due to the fact the wobble has a ~433-day cycle. 54 cycles fit approximately into 10 syzygies of 2338 days (i.e., 433 x 54 = 23382 days).
Also interesting is the above ratio 9468900/360 is very close to 71499/e, where e is the natural logarithm (2.71828…), a number close to 2.72, naturally.
Section 13: Geometric Solomon’s Seal
Durgin: Gigantic Solomon’s seal laid out in plan form, deep in the woods; formed at vertices by granite boulders, 273 ft apart (about). Pentagram overlaid such that its vertex is coincident with center of top crossbar (one of six legs of the hexagram). Hexagram and pentagram are tilted to the NW by 15 degrees, such that the internal 45-45-90 triangle has sides (approx 193 ft) aligned N-S and E-W. This 15-degree delta can only occur at certain earth locations, so it’s possible the intent was an enormous geodetic marker. This internal triangle I found first (about 6 years ago). Took more than a decade of repeated measurements to finally work most of it out, but the years of uncertainty, confusion and doubt were all worth it, due to the intensity of clarity that takes hold (things falling together in rapid succession) when the solution is approached, and then all the mistakes I made in the past are understood and I slap my forehead.
Section 14: Current Jobs
Jacobsen: What is the new job, or are the current jobs?
Durgin: Large defense contractor, functionally I am a Senior RF Design Engineer. I also double as a Physics Instructor and a marketing strategist.
Section 15: Arch Euclid Secret
Jacobsen: What is “Arch Euclid Secret”? Anything else to be included outside of Astronomy, Chronometry, Metrology and Mythology?
Durgin: No, that’s enough. Actually, I am still working on The Pentachoron, which is a fugue-like literary creation of mine. I’m attempting to fuse all 4 of Borges’ literary devices together: (a) The Voyage through Time, (b) the Story within the Story, (c) the Contamination of Reality by the Dream, and (d) the Double. I have had intimate knowledge of each of these in my life, especially FUCKING ALL OF THEM. So a labyrinth I get trapped in is an apt metaphor, especially if I must create a labyrinth in order to enter the big one; then be trapped for aeons.
I can’t easily summarize Arch Euclid Secret other than to say the central and primary theme is Geometry, which is the most archaic form of knowledge we know of (predates language, symbols, letters, orthography, etc.), preserved by ancient priests (Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian), eventually discovered and preserved by modern-day Freemasons. One Secret (I believe known to Euclid) is in plain sight to those who study geometry and its history: latent in art, language, mythology (scripture); also used in metrology, chronometry, and astronomical observations. The relationship crosses over to religious treasures and artifacts: Noah’s Ark, Enoch’s pillars, Enoch’s altar, the Emerald tablet, Solomon’s Temple, The Ark of the Covenant, the grail, etc., which all have very exhaustive and precise geometric detail in their references.
This secret is just one example of a geometric relationship (which ties together many of the above) and is that between the Egyptian royal cubit (“RC” which I take to be 1.72 feet or 20.64 inches) versus √3 = 1.7320508…. An equilateral triangle is the best form to illustrate this, where the sides are about 71-1/2 feet, then its height is ~36 RC. The relation is precise if the sides are 72×1.72/√3 = 71.499057336… So close to 71.5 ft that no practical distinction could be made even today, excepting laser measurement or maybe thin film processes.
Inclusion of the number 68 ties together the equilateral triangle with the pentagram. That is, 68 feet is 25 RC + 25 feet = total 25 “megalithic yards” (“MY” = 2.72 feet). Coincidentally, if a pentagram has sides of ~71.5 ft, then its height (which is the height of its circumscribed pentagon) is very near 68 feet, especially if the 71.499… metric is used: 72 x 1.72/√3 x (cosine 18) = 67.999644… Again, close enough that the ancients would not have detected a difference. Both these numbers (71.5 or 72, and 68) appear to have been used on a few obelisks (the height of Cleopatra’s needles, for example). What I like about this is the fusion of ancient metrology: MY, RD, and feet. Jefferson worked on this, so did Newton a century before him.
I have rational reasons for believing Euclid was well aware of this obvious little pearl of a relation, and have thus commandeered a Greek letter for its definition: Ξ (def) = 72×1.72/√3
This also dovetails back into the orbital cycles and calendric chicanery previously mentioned, but not enough space here to cover.
Section 16: Excavation Projects and Petroglyphs
Jacobsen: What have you been excavating? Any related to petroglyphs?
Durgin: Yes, the above #3. There are dozens of petroglyphs there; four of them are:
Gigantic head of what appears to be a Griffin (used to think was an owl)
Serpent
Turtle
Head of a crane, or sandpiper/bird. I call it Saiph.
The griffin head is about a 10-ton stone, the serpent consists of 4 segments of granite stones laid out in a 34-35 ft length (each stone about 8 feet x 4 ft, so these are ~5 tons each). Its head bears an additional carving of the griffin’s claw and just above the serpent’s mouth, one of the talons in the claw is pressing down on a small stone, intended to represent a pearl or perhaps gemstone. The serpent is about 300 ft south of the griffin and extends from north to south, tail to head. There is a geometric arrangement of all of these that I am still working out, very difficult and time-consuming. Over a 60-acre spread in deep woods, completely covered in granite stones. So the “Find the pattern among chaos” is an apt symbol here. Perhaps even the labyrinth.
Saiph is only visible after March, due to the necessary sun’s elevation to cast a shadow on the stone (otherwise viewing is impossible). Brilliant carving, as it is in bas-relief too. Finding it was a magic moment, as with a few others not mentioned here.
Section 17: Political Views on Dictatorship
Jacobsen: What kind of “a little crazy right now”?
Durgin: What is crazy is that Trump’s followers have no problem with a dictatorship. Never thought I would see this kind of anti-American idiocy in my lifetime. And when liberals (or even rational conservatives for that matter) force their little heads around to observe the constitution’s guarantee on individual freedoms, they shout “dictator!” It’s formidably amazing how ignorant these people are and how close we are to losing the Republic. There is hope, though…
Section 18: Curiosity as Motivation
Jacobsen: What seems to have spurred all this new activity?
Durgin: My unholy curiosity.
Section 19: Egyptian Hieroglyphs Characterization
Jacobsen: What is an accurate way in which to characterize Egyptian hieroglyphs as a language?
Durgin: Solis Sacerdotibus: Only for the initiated.
Section 20: Geometric Necropolis
Jacobsen: What is the geometric necropolis?
Durgin: “I learned the secret among the bones of the dead.”
Still working everything out, see above #3. It may be a ritual-only necropolis (no dead bodies), but this is a multi-generation construction, so I don’t know for sure yet. Learning how to lift 2000-3000 pound stones out of a 14-foot deep hole I excavated; also excavated a 40 ft long tunnel (connected to the hole at its bottom) through near solid granite; took me 4 months to go 20 feet, and this slightly below the water table, so imagine laying supine on ledge deep below ground with 6-10 ft of stone and a further 6 ft of earth above you, dragging yourself by your arms across the ledge and through about 6-9” of cold water; all the while the ledge ABOVE you is scraping your backside as you move forward in the dark…). All this in a remote wooded area with hand tools. Insanity. But, regarding its construction, seems like a lot of work for ritual. Perhaps they were creating a mythical ancestry due to the fact they were exiles. That is…maybe their parents, grandparents, etc., were all buried back home, so in order to create the psychological illusion/impression they were still with them, they built a pseudo-cemetery. This does tie in to Reymond’s thesis tangentially.
Section 21: Da Vinci’s Drawings
Jacobsen: What are da Vinci’s drawings telling you?
Durgin: That he also knew.
Section 22: Jewish Princedom
Jacobsen: What is Jewish princedom?
Durgin: A 1972 study about the 8th/9th century activity in France, which paralleled the rise and reign of Charlemagne. His family apparently merged with that of a Jewish Prince (“Nazir”) from Babylonia who was brought over (by King Pepin, Charlemagne’s father) to rule the Jewish communities in Narbonne (against the Pope’s wishes). Narbonne was part of Septimania in southern France (not far from Rennes le Chateau), Carcassonne, Rennes le Bains, etc.), and it is here that Pepin and his sons established a Jewish Princedom, according to Zuckerman. The use of calendar cycles on the part of the Jews was covered here, for they were believing a Jewish Kingdom could be established in time, thus their Messiah would show. Many Christians (leaders) were spitting and farting in their chairs, of course; just beside themselves to death, especially Pope Stephen.
Section 23: Phoenician History Connection
Jacobsen: How does the Phoenician history tie into this new work?
Durgin: It doesn’t too much. One is ancient, the other Medieval. They both make reference to calendar cycles, of sorts, but Cumberland was so clouded and poisoned in his judgment by his attempt to show Sanchuniathon as “heathen,” versus “proper Christian,” that it’s difficult to unveil the nuggets and disentangle the actual facts. Religion poisons everything, as Hitchens said.
Section 24: Reymond’s Conclusion
Jacobsen: What is Reymond’s conclusion?
Durgin: My brutal summary does not do 10% justice to her work, which is brilliant: The Ancient Egyptian Temple is entirely mythical (at its beginning), except for the pattern first established. All future versions of the temple are simply copies and manifestations of the original. This is similar to the concept of an architectural plan or engineering drawing/blueprint representing all future buildings constructed from it, but the original is deeply ensconced in myth. In the same way, all the Hebrew treasures (including the temple) are conceptual only. Those who choose to build one are simply manifesting a particular version of it (“true copies”).
This dovetails into my Arch-Euclid Secret in the sense that Geometry on paper is perfect. Geometry in concept is perfect (like the grail, or ark of the covenant), but real practical geometry is not and never can be. There are no perfectly straight lines, perfectly parallel lines, perfect circles, etc., except in concept. Euclid knew this, of course.
The Egyptians used natural elements to inform their myth: Hawks, reeds, serpents, catastrophes, islands, fire, turtles, etc., as well as precise geometry. Much like the South Americans. Typically, they used √2, √3, and √5 (emphasis on two meanings of the term “root”). Interestingly, I believe they were inspired by the constellation of Orion, because a simple rendition of the stars (i.e., flattened onto a map) come close: From Saiph to Rigel to Bellatrix forms a very near 1-2-√3 triangle (30-60-90 degrees). A pseudo-rectangular version of the constellation may have been used as a design for a flat stone gnomon in the deep past.
Section 25: Dominant Theme Connection
Jacobsen: How is “Ars est Celare Artum” or art is to conceal art connecting everything as a “dominant theme”?
Durgin: Geometry hidden in Art (like Poussin, Teniers, da Vinci, etc.), Geometry hidden in calendar cycles and mythologies (art imitating life and vice versa), my excavation project: same. The geometric stone necropolis is the ultimate example of true art concealing art within a chaotic landscape, and further concealing sweet spots within the geometry. I have attempted to conceal art within my own work as well. Inspiration. The theme which preceded this was deeply ingrained in me from over 25 years ago: Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
Discussion
This interview with Scott Durgin provides a deep exploration of his multifaceted life, seamlessly integrating personal milestones with extensive professional and scholarly endeavors. Scott’s recent marriage and the anticipation of his first child mark significant personal developments, showcasing his ability to balance intimate relationships with demanding career roles. Professionally, he serves as a Senior RF Design Engineer at a large defense contractor, while also fulfilling responsibilities as a Physics Instructor and a marketing strategist. This combination highlights his versatility and commitment to both technical and educational fields.
A substantial portion of the discussion centers around Scott’s scholarly pursuits, particularly his work on “Arch Euclid Secret” and his ongoing project “The Pentachoron.” These projects reflect his profound interest in geometry, mythology, and the intersection of ancient knowledge with modern scientific principles. The overarching theme of “Ars est Celare Artum” (Art is to conceal art) underscores his belief in the hidden complexities within art and ancient structures, emphasizing the concealed geometric and symbolic patterns that have influenced historical and contemporary contexts.
Scott’s excavation of a geometric necropolis reveals his dedication to uncovering and understanding ancient geometrical arrangements and petroglyphs. This project not only demonstrates his hands-on approach to archaeology but also his commitment to preserving and interpreting historical artifacts. His ability to manage such an ambitious excavation alongside his professional duties speaks to his exceptional time management and unwavering passion for uncovering historical truths.
Additionally, Scott’s extensive reading list and his efforts to learn Egyptian hieroglyphs and cartography illustrate his relentless pursuit of knowledge and intellectual growth. His engagement with a diverse array of subjects, from ancient civilizations to modern scientific theories, showcases his interdisciplinary approach to understanding the world.
The interview also delves into Scott’s perspectives on the current political climate in the United States, where he expresses concerns over democratic stability and the rise of anti-democratic sentiments. His critical views on both political extremes reflect a deep-seated commitment to maintaining democratic principles and ethical responsibility, aligning with his broader humanistic values.
Overall, the interview highlights Scott Durgin’s dedication to integrating ancient knowledge with modern scientific and engineering practices. It underscores his ability to navigate the complexities of balancing personal life with demanding scholarly and professional commitments, painting a portrait of a highly dedicated and intellectually curious individual.
Methods
The interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, conducted a semi-structured interview with Scott Durgin to facilitate an in-depth conversation. With Scott Durgin’s consent, the interview was held either online or in person, depending on logistical arrangements. The session was recorded to ensure accuracy and later transcribed verbatim. The transcript was then edited for clarity and organization, maintaining the integrity of Scott Durgin’s responses while presenting them in a coherent and accessible format.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4). January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Scott Durgin on Lots of Seemingly Random Stuff (4) [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/durgin-4
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: October 27, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview explores the intersection of science and humanism through the insights of Dr. Lawrence Krauss, an esteemed theoretical physicist and public intellectual. Dr. Krauss discusses the fundamental principles of humanism, including the acceptance of reality, the use of reason and intelligence to improve society, and the importance of skepticism and scientific integrity. The conversation delves into challenges in science communication, the misconceptions surrounding the concept of “nothing,” and the dynamics of engaging with differing ideologies. Additionally, Dr. Krauss shares his experiences in public debates, his views on effective science communicators, and the role of humanism in promoting equality and resisting oppressive structures. This interview provides a comprehensive understanding of Dr. Krauss’s vision for a scientifically informed and humanistic society.
Keywords: Debates, Equality, Humanism, Lawrence Krauss, Nothing, Philosophy of Science, Public Understanding of Science, Science Communication, Scientific Integrity, Skepticism, Oppression
Introduction
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a prominent theoretical physicist and bestselling author, is renowned for his ability to bridge complex scientific concepts with public discourse. In this interview conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dr. Krauss delves into the essence of humanism, emphasizing its reliance on reason, intelligence, and the acceptance of reality to foster societal improvement. The discussion addresses the challenges inherent in communicating intricate scientific ideas to a broader audience, highlighting the importance of integrity and skepticism in both scientific endeavors and humanistic practices. Dr. Krauss also reflects on his experiences in public debates, offering critiques on effective science communication and the interplay between science and philosophy. Furthermore, he elucidates the nuanced understanding of “nothing” within the context of physics and cosmology, countering common misconceptions. This interview sheds light on Dr. Krauss’s commitment to promoting a scientifically literate and equitable society through his work with The Origins Project and his role as a public intellectual.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Dr. Lawrence Krauss
Section 1: Defining Humanism
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Lawrence Krauss, probably one of the most prominent humanists. Thank you for taking the time today and indulging in a pipsqueak like me, as an older term for endearment. Today’s focus will be humanism and nothing. I’m an independent journalist. So, I can choose the topic and don’t necessarily have to engage in “gotcha” journalism or focus on one thing and another. I want to focus on a couple topics of interest and expertise for someone for a limited allotted time. So, when we’re focusing on humanism and nothing in this interview, it makes you an expert in something and nothing. You have a broad palette!
Dr. Lawrence Krauss: The two are not that different.
Section 2: Characteristics of Humanist Communities
Jacobsen: When you see humanism, at least the theory as opposed to the practice, what is its characteristic for you as you travel the world and see different humanist communities?
Krauss: Well, I guess, first of all, I don’t tend to label people in terms of “-isms.” I don’t think in terms of “-isms.” I don’t say, “This is a humanist community,” or “These people are humanists.” People are individuals, and I don’t label myself except, perhaps, as a scientist.
But humanism is a willingness to accept the world for what it is and realize that we can try to make the world a better place with intelligence and reason. Those are the two basic features: accept reality and take the evidence of reality as your guide, and use your intelligence, reason, and observations to try to make the world a better place for both people and, in my case, nature as well.
Section 3: Filtering Facts Through Ideologies
Jacobsen: Do you think a common mistake for most people is filtering the world’s facts through a particular ideology, religious or otherwise?
Krauss: We all do it. We’re all hardwired to do it, so we have to fight against it. We learned a neat tool about 500 years ago—certainly at least 400—that helps overcome this natural human tendency. It’s called science. We learned that scientists are flawed, but the scientific process is self-correcting.
This process involves taking data, making predictions, checking them against the data, and making your ideas open to rigorous scrutiny and attack from colleagues and others. This way, you filter out what’s wrong. You check again, do more experiments, and repeat the process. It works and helps overcome the natural human tendency to want to believe things—like Fox Mulder in The X-Files.
Section 4: Challenges in Scientific Training
Jacobsen: What part of scientific training do you think was the most difficult when training junior scientists?
Krauss: The hardest part is learning to work equally hard to prove your ideas wrong as you do to prove them right. The easiest person to fool is yourself. It’s easy to be skeptical of other people’s data but harder to be skeptical of your ideas. The most difficult challenge is being willing to look for what’s wrong with your arguments.
Section 5: Effective Science Communicators
Jacobsen: Who do you think is the best science communicator?
Krauss: “The best science communicator,” one of my favourite science communicators is Jacob Bronowski. He made a TV series called The Ascent of Man and wrote several great books. The Ascent of Man is one of the best examples of science communication, but it’s not just about science. It’s one of the best science and humanist art TV series ever. He was brilliant, and his books are wonderful. So he’s high on my list, though he could be more well-known today. He was more recognized back when his show aired—13 parts, if I remember correctly.
But anyway, he was a great science communicator—a scientist of sorts. Richard Feynman was another excellent science communicator who got people excited and thinking. However, Carl Sagan has done an outstanding job of inspiring people. Albert Einstein also wrote clear books about relativity. And, of course, Charles Darwin is at the top of the list.
Section 6: Reflections on Darwin and Communication
Jacobsen: I’m sure the late Daniel Dennett would have agreed on that point.
Krauss: Well, maybe he would have, I don’t know. Richard Dawkins is always surprised when I say that, as a physicist, Darwin is my top choice. Not because of On the Origin of Species but because I was captivated by his earlier work, The Voyage of the Beagle. It’s a gripping book—it reads like a Hollywood movie. He’s almost always getting killed, making you think about everything. It’s remarkable. It’s a great read. I thought it would be tedious and difficult, but it’s not.
Section 7: Communicating Big Ideas to the Public
Krauss: Big ideas—general relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on—have at least been communicated to the public. These are foundational theories that the general public may not fully understand since we don’t all have the math or training, but the concepts have been explained clearly. For example, if you drop a rock and a feather, most people think the rock falls faster because it’s heavier. That misconception is independent of college education, as I’ve discovered.
At some level, though, certain ideas filter down. The fact that the universe had a beginning, even if people don’t believe it was only 6,000 years ago, filters through. The idea of the Big Bang is a profound result. General relativity involves the curvature of space and the existence of black holes—those ideas filter in.
That’s why I write books: to give people perspective. I don’t expect them to understand the details. The biggest surprise for me when I first wrote a book, which was originally a disappointment, was that many readers didn’t grasp the full depth. But I got over it.
Section 8: Reader Feedback and Misunderstandings
Krauss: When people write to me, saying, “I loved your book” and “I loved this part, blah blah blah,” it’s often completely different from what I had written. I need clarification on what I wrote. At first, I thought, “How disappointing.” But I had inspired them to think about it, and maybe that’s what matters.
Section 9: Communicating Humanist Ideas and Misunderstandings
Jacobsen: Do you find a similar experience when communicating humanist ideas or humanism in general—particularly when advancing science education for the public? Do you encounter similar misunderstandings of what you’re writing about humanism or values that would be considered humanist?
Krauss: Absolutely. First, what happens online is that people often only read the title or what someone else says about the title. So, of course, there are misunderstandings because most people need to be tuned to read what I say. They read what someone thinks I said or just the title and that’s enough for them.
Online, the level of discourse is sometimes below kindergarten level—they read almost nothing. They glance at the title, feel they’ve read enough, and then comment, usually writing something antagonistic. Sometimes, they love it without even reading it.
For example, when my Substack article or video is released, I’ll get “I love it” responses within 15 seconds of it going live, which tells me they probably didn’t read or watch it. It’s nice that they love it, but engaging with the content would be good.
Section 10: Misconceptions About “Nothing”
Jacobsen: That leads to the second topic—with almost nothing as the transition. You’ve explained this hundreds of times, I’m sure. When people think of “nothing,” they imagine an endless black void. What’s wrong with that image, and what’s the appropriate way to understand it?
Krauss: As I said in my book, A Universe from Nothing, there are many versions of “nothing.” For example, the Bible’s idea of “nothing” is often depicted as an endless void, which is one version of “nothing.” But there are many more. The easiest “nothing” to talk about is space—because space isn’t empty. It’s filled with virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and some eventually become real particles. So, that “nothing” is unstable; if you wait long enough, something will happen.
Then, you have another level of “nothing,” no space or time. That’s the version I was mostly talking about in my book. You take all the space and time we live in and imagine none existed. Then, suddenly, it did. That’s possible, even though some people struggle with the concept, asking, “What was out there before?” or “Was there anything else?” These are generally meaningless questions because everything in our universe—space and time—did not exist before, and then it did. Whether there was some preexisting structure or something else is irrelevant.
Our universe didn’t exist, and then it did. It’s like a magic trick. I’ve been practicing magic tricks while talking to you.
Section 11: Theological Pushback on “Nothing”
Jacobsen: So, Penn Jillette would be proud.
Krauss: Well, Penn is proud! He’s happy that I value magic.
Jacobsen: I should send him an email. I interviewed the late James Randi before he passed away, and I’m glad I had the chance to do that.
Krauss: One of my favourite pictures is of Penn, me, and Randi. I love it because I’m happy to be with two men I admire, and we all fit in the same frame. It was remarkable, especially because Randi was much shorter than me!
Section 12: Defining “Something from Nothing”
Jacobsen: So, what would be another definition of something from nothing?
Krauss: A lot of what you see in the world is illusion, too. The difference is, in science, we try to distinguish between illusion and reality.
Section 13: Theological Pushback and Meaning of “Why”
Jacobsen: When you discuss the concept of “nothing,” more precisely defined as it relates to how the real world operates, what kind of pushback do you typically get from theologians or people looking for more than just that explanation?
Krauss: What do I get from theologians? Nothing much. When you say they’re looking for more of an answer, do you mean they want some meaning behind why it’s happening?
Jacobsen: Correct. You explain, but they often ask, “Why.” And when you respond that “why” has no inherent meaning, that can be frustrating for them, right?
Krauss: They’re looking for an answer that implies some underlying purpose or immateriality.
Section 14: The Meaning of “Why” and the Laws of Physics
Jacobsen: But as you’ve pointed out, when they ask “why,” they often mean “how.” They expect answers about purpose when the question is about reality’s mechanisms. And then they ask, “Where did the laws of physics come from?” or similar questions, right?
Krauss: Yes, that’s a common follow-up. The simplest and most honest answer is, “I don’t know.” And that’s the point of my last book. The three most important words in science—and in life, really—are “I don’t know.”
That means there’s more to learn. But there are many possible answers, and they would prefer something else would need more. The simplest answer is that the laws of physics came into existence simultaneously with the universe. That’s an answer only some people find satisfying, but it’s possible. Another possibility is that some laws have preexisted the universe.
When you say “laws,” it implies that there’s maybe only one underlying set of rules by which physical existence can manifest. At least one thing is certain: many of the laws in our universe are emergent, effective laws—they are accidents of our universe. The properties of elementary particles and the four forces of nature are likely accidental consequences of what happened after the Big Bang. But fundamental concepts, like general relativity and quantum mechanics, may be intrinsic properties of nature. Why does nature have those properties? Who knows?
And maybe—again—it’s unclear whether that question even has meaning. So, it’s almost a meaningless question to ask if the laws were “eternal.” Because if time itself came into existence with the universe, then what does “eternal” even mean?
Section 15: The Concept of “Eternal” and Time
Krauss: “Eternal” only has meaning if time exists. If time came into existence with the universe, then “eternal” becomes an ill-defined concept. There could be a global time variable in some space outside our universe or in some other context from which our universe emerged. In that case, there could be an “eternal” time variable. But it needs to be better defined, especially when talking about the origin of our universe, where we know the laws of physics break down at the point where space and time began.
Section 16: Occam’s Razor and Extra Dimensions
Jacobsen: That could also be reduced to Occam’s Razor—parsimony. If people are positing some invariant time outside of our regular universe, does that create a rickety structure of assumptions?
Krauss: Again, it depends on what you mean by “outside of our universe.” Our universe could be infinite. But if our universe emerged spontaneously as a closed universe, there would be no “outside” as it expanded. It just came into existence. There may be other spaces, but there’s no reason to assume our universe was embedded in those spaces.
Now, there are extra dimensions that we’re embedded in some larger multidimensional space. Despite being a well-motivated idea, that’s another possibility, though it currently needs more evidence.
Section 17: String Theory’s Definition of “Nothing”
Jacobsen: Do string theorists define “nothing” differently than what you’ve described?
Krauss: Do string theorists define “nothing” differently? No. String theorists are physicists, so we all define “nothing” similarly. It still comes down to quantum mechanics and general relativity because that’s what string theory is based on. String theory expands upon these ideas, but the fundamental definition of “nothing” remains the same.
And what I can say that maybe generalizes string theory, especially beyond four dimensions of space and time, is that string theory suggests there’s a smallest possible distance you can get to—it doesn’t allow you to reach zero size. In other words, you can achieve a fundamental smallest scale, a minimum length, known as the Planck length.
String theory also implies there’s the smallest time increment because space and time are intertwined. The best way to put it is that there’s a minimum space-time interval. Things popping in and out of existence still happen. Still, string theory allows for a much larger framework for these phenomena. Not only does it allow, but it requires more than four dimensions—beyond the three spatial dimensions and one-time dimensions we’re familiar with—for the theory to be mathematically consistent.
If string theory describes our universe, there are likely more than four space-time dimensions. The theory is well-defined. However, we’re still learning about the mathematical structures within it. Strings used to be considered the fundamental building blocks. Still, we know that strings are only some fundamental constructs in string theory. We’ve moved to more complex entities like membranes (branes) and manifolds.
It’s a complicated mathematical framework—I was about to say “mess,” but I don’t know if that’s fair. It’s a work in progress.
Section 18: Sean Carroll and Poetic Naturalism
Jacobsen: Sean Carroll is another prominent humanist and popularizer of science.
Krauss: I think of him more as a philosopher, however.
Jacobsen: He’s an effective presenter.
Krauss: He is. Sometimes, yes. He could be overly poetic for my taste, but he’s an effective communicator.
Jacobsen: He uses this concept of “poetic naturalism” to encapsulate his views.
Krauss: Yes, that’s where I don’t quite align with him. He’s effective but sometimes makes things sound grand, maybe to appear smarter. He’s written entire books on many-worlds interpretation, which feels like a waste of pages. The key issue isn’t what interpretation of quantum mechanics we use—whether it’s many-worlds or something else. The important thing is not how we interpret quantum mechanics but how we interpret classical mechanics.
The world is inherently quantum mechanical. So, trying to frame it in terms of some “effective” classical theory and then coming up with something that sounds bizarre doesn’t add much. Of course, quantum mechanics is weird, but the point is that the world is quantum mechanical, and we should embrace that.
So, any classical interpretation of quantum mechanics seems weird. But again, Sean Carroll is more of a philosopher because philosophers love creating and quoting these definitions. I don’t think in terms of definitions. What is “poetic naturalism”? I’m sorry, I’m going on a rant here. But anytime you start creating these fancy terms, it feels like something philosophers love to do, and often, it just obfuscates, as far as I can see. What’s the formal definition of poetic naturalism?
Section 19: Poetic Naturalism Defined
Jacobsen: I don’t know the formal definition, but I understand it’s about using ordinary language to describe the world while acknowledging that we operate under physical laws and principles.
Krauss: Maybe. But if that’s what it is, why not just say that? It is an overly grandiose way of describing something very straightforward. Anyway, I’m digressing.
Section 20: Experiences in Public Debates
Jacobsen: You’ve participated in a few debates—what was your favourite moment from those debates?
Krauss: I generally don’t enjoy debates. They’re more rhetorical exercises than explanation, logic, and critical thinking discussions. I don’t think about favourites, but I recall one of the most effective moments. Unfortunately, I debated William Lane Craig several times. I assumed he was well-meaning the first time, but I soon realized that was my mistake. Afterward, I tried to avoid him, though I debated him again despite attempting to convince the organizers in Australia not to invite him. We did three debates for a Christian group—very nice people—with large audiences, mostly Christians. It was fun to expose the superficiality of his thinking on certain topics.
There were two notable things: first, his arguments were low-hanging fruit, and second, he distorts and lies, which is why I found it so frustrating—one moment that resonated with the audience occurred during the Q&A section of one of these debates. Unfortunately, most of these debates were moderated by philosophers who often seemed more interested in hearing themselves talk than in asking us meaningful questions. But one asked, “What would it take to change your mind?”—specifically about belief in God.
Section 21: Response to William Lane Craig’s Question
Jacobsen: What did you say?
Krauss: I said that if I looked up at the night sky and the stars realigned to spell out “I’m here” in Aramaic, Hebrew, English, or even Russian, I’d be impressed. That would be a remarkable event. It would make me reconsider things. William, on the other hand, gave a remarkably facile answer. This surprised me, considering he has debated this topic his whole life.
William Lane Craig said that if his daughter died, he’d question the existence of God. Wow, that’s a pretty flimsy belief system.
Then there was another moment, similar in tone. I had heard him debate before, and I think this came from one of those debates. It was about the Amalekites. You know, the biblical story where the Israelites are commanded to kill all the Amalekite men, women, and children—everyone.
Section 22: Debating Biblical Narratives
Jacobsen: Yes, I’m familiar with it.
Krauss: So, I asked him, “What about the children? Why did they have to be killed? They hadn’t done anything wrong.”
His response was, again, remarkable. First, he said, “The children haven’t done anything wrong, so they’ll go to heaven.” Great—because that’s what parents want to hear, right? Then he said something even more shocking: “I don’t feel sorry for the children. I feel sorry for the Hebrew soldiers who had to kill them under God’s orders because they would have been traumatized.”
That alienated most of the audience. It was a moment that stuck with me.
Section 23: Connection to Humanism and Human Rights
Jacobsen: That’s astounding.
Krauss: Yes, it was.
Jacobsen: This ties into humanism. A deep sense of fairness, equality, and human rights is important to many humanists, though not all. Noam Chomsky, for example, has a long history of political activism and has been described as a humanist and self-describes as an atheist.
I remember during one debate, you refused to take part because they were planning gender segregation. Could you tell me more about that moment and your decision?
Section 24: Refusing to Debate on Principle
Krauss: Yes, I did refuse. Noam Chomsky—by the way, I don’t think he necessarily identifies as an atheist, even though he’s often described that way. He doesn’t care about that label. He’s often told me that he doesn’t care what people believe, only what they do. It’s about actions, not beliefs, for him. And that’s true for me as well.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. So, how do you maintain that courage in the face of pressure, especially when you’re in a situation where standing up for equality could result in pushback from the crowd? Chomsky has a long history of activism and has faced backlash. I imagine you’ve encountered similar resistance.
Krauss: It isn’t easy sometimes. In that particular case, when I refused to debate in a segregated environment, I was standing by a principle I believe in deeply, secularism in a secular forum. It’s not about making grand gestures; it’s about not compromising on fundamental values. I knew there would be consequences, but you can’t let that deter you. The key is to remind yourself of the bigger picture. When you’re in front of a crowd, it’s easy to get caught up in their reactions, but you must stay focused on what’s right rather than on what’s popular. Over time, you develop the resilience to withstand that kind of pushback. It helps to remember that history often judges those who stand for equality and justice more favourably in the long run than those who try to appease the status quo.
Section 26: Facing Hostility and Real Courage
Jacobsen: At that moment, you were facing pushback from the crowd. Was that a scary situation for you?
Krauss: There have been scarier moments, but it wasn’t about courage in the traditional sense. You either act in a way you believe is right or don’t. When you put yourself in that position, you must back up your words with action. Deciding not to debate and walking out if they didn’t desegregate the audience wasn’t the most courageous thing I’ve ever done. For me, it was a no-brainer.
I did it partly because I felt it was disingenuous—they had told me the event wouldn’t be segregated, and then it was. But more importantly, two young men sitting in the women’s section were about to be dragged out, and they asked for my help. They were scared, so I stepped in. That wasn’t the scary part, however.
The really scary part was afterward, looking into the eyes of the women in burkas. There was so much hate in their eyes because of the desegregation. You don’t know what people might be carrying under their burkas, and the hostility was palpable. During the question period, one of these women asked, “How dare you? What right do you have to do that?”
I tried to be gentle in my response, explaining that if we were in a mosque, she’d have every right to feel that way. But we were in a university lecture hall, in a secular society. If she went to a football game, she couldn’t say, “Stop the game until the women sit on one side and the men on the other.” The event was videotaped and recorded; she didn’t have to come if she didn’t want to sit next to a man. But in a secular society, she couldn’t expect her religious needs to dictate public events.
People sometimes call me or Richard Dawkins brave, but let me tell you what real bravery is. I recently came back from an event in Oslo with ex-Muslims from around the world. These are people who face death threats for renouncing their faith. They have to flee their countries, and their parents say they wish they had killed them when they were babies. These people live with that pain, and they still call their parents, who tell them they wish they had been killed. That’s real bravery.
That’s a different level of courage than simply getting up and walking out of a debate.
Section 27: Closing the Debate Discussion
Krauss: That’s a different level of courage than simply getting up and walking out of a debate.
Jacobsen: Lawrence, thank you for the opportunity and your time today, sharing insights on something and nothing.
Krauss: I wonder if I gave you many insights, but I owe you more time. Hopefully, there’s something useful in all of that.
Section 28: Final Remarks
Jacobsen: Excellent. Dr. Krauss, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Krauss: Thank you for giving me this opportunity. If you need anything, please don’t hesitate to contact me or my team. It’s been a pleasure to join you today. Thank you for the invitation.
Jacobsen: Take care. Nice to meet you.
Krauss: Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Discussion
This interview with Dr. Lawrence Krauss provides a profound exploration of the principles of humanism as they intersect with scientific inquiry and public discourse. Dr. Krauss emphasizes that humanism is fundamentally about accepting the world as it is and striving to improve it through reason and intelligence. He highlights the inherent challenges in science communication, particularly the tendency for audiences to engage superficially with complex ideas, often leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Dr. Krauss’s critique of online discourse underscores the importance of depth and engagement in fostering a scientifically literate society.
A significant portion of the discussion centers around the concept of “nothing” in physics and cosmology. Dr. Krauss elucidates the different interpretations of “nothing,” challenging common misconceptions and addressing theological pushback. His explanations demystify complex scientific concepts, making them more accessible to the public while maintaining their intricate nuances. This approach reinforces the role of scientists as educators and communicators who bridge the gap between specialized knowledge and public understanding.
Dr. Krauss also shares his experiences in public debates, particularly his interactions with William Lane Craig. These anecdotes illustrate the challenges of engaging with deeply entrenched ideological positions and the limitations of debates as platforms for genuine understanding. His reflections reveal a commitment to integrity and principled discourse over rhetorical victories, aligning with the core tenets of humanism that prioritize truth and ethical responsibility.
Overall, the interview underscores Dr. Krauss’s dedication to promoting a society that values scientific integrity, critical thinking, and humanistic principles. His insights advocate for a more informed and equitable public discourse, where complex ideas are communicated effectively, and societal challenges are addressed through reasoned and ethical approaches.
Methods
The interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, conducted an in-depth, semi-structured interview with Dr. Lawrence Krauss. The conversation was arranged with Dr. Krauss’s consent and took place in a setting conducive to a comprehensive dialogue, either online or in person, based on logistical considerations. The interview was recorded to ensure accuracy and fidelity to both participants’ viewpoints. Following the interview, the recording was transcribed verbatim, capturing Dr. Krauss’s responses in their entirety. The transcript was then meticulously edited for clarity and brevity, ensuring that the essence and substance of Dr. Krauss’s insights were preserved without introducing any bias or alteration. This methodological approach facilitated a rich qualitative analysis of Dr. Krauss’s perspectives on humanism, science communication, and the interplay between science and society, allowing for an in-depth understanding of his philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing. January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Lawrence Krauss on Non-“Ism” Humanism and Nothing [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/krauss
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: January 14, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: January 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview delves into the political perspectives and policy positions of Maxime Bernier, leader and founder of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Established in 2018 after his departure from the Conservative Party, Bernier discusses the PPC’s foundational principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, fairness, and respect. The conversation covers a range of topics including immigration, foreign policy, economic strategies, housing affordability, gender policies, and climate change. Bernier emphasizes his party’s commitment to reducing government intervention, promoting Canadian sovereignty, and addressing socio-economic challenges through consistent and principled approaches. The interview provides insight into Bernier’s vision for Canada’s future and the PPC’s strategies to garner support in upcoming elections.
Keywords: Climate change, Corporate welfare, Economic growth, Foreign aid, Gender policies, Government spending, Immigration, Individual freedom, Personal responsibility, Public finance, Self-defence, Societal cohesion
Introduction
Maxime Bernier, the leader and founder of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), offers a comprehensive overview of his political ideology and the party’s policy positions in this detailed interview. Founded in 2018 following his departure from the Conservative Party, Bernier leverages his background in commerce and law to advocate for principles centered on individual freedom, personal responsibility, fairness, and respect. Throughout the interview, Bernier addresses critical issues such as immigration, economic policy, foreign affairs, housing affordability, gender ideology, and climate change, outlining the PPC’s strategies to address these challenges while promoting Canadian sovereignty and prosperity. This discussion provides valuable insights into Bernier’s vision for Canada’s future and the PPC’s role in shaping national discourse.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Hon. Maxime Bernier
Section 1: Founding of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the Honorable Maxime Bernier. He is the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, founded in 2018 after resigning from the Conservative Party. Mr. Bernier holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the Université du Québec à Montréal and a law degree from the University of Ottawa. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 1990 before entering politics. Additionally, he served as Vice President of the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005, previously working for various financial and banking institutions. He has had a diverse political career, including roles as a Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister.
We could expand on those details in the biography, but today, we are here to discuss facts, figures, and policies. To begin with, as an overview, what is the overarching vision or philosophical stance that unites all the platforms under one umbrella?
Maxime Bernier: As you mentioned, the answer to that question begins with creating the People’s Party of Canada in 2018. Our platform was based on the principles I emphasized during the Conservative Party of Canada leadership contest. The People’s Party of Canada is founded on four key principles: individual freedom, personal responsibility, fairness, and respect.
Section 2: Core Principles and Political Approach
Bernier: All our policies align with these principles. It is important to understand that we approach politics differently. This is not an empty slogan; it is our reality. We do not conduct polling or hold focus groups. Instead, we have a clear vision for Canada rooted in these principles and articulate our policies during every election. We do not shift our stance to follow trends or polling data. Our goal is to promote our ideas consistently. The more we share them, the more support we will gain. Theist media and establishment politicians have misled the Canadian public, and we aim to counter that by speaking directly to the people about facts and policies that can genuinely improve the country.
The People’s Party was established in 2018, participated in its first election in 2019, and contested its most recent election in 2021, receiving approximately 5% of the popular vote. The next general election in Canada is scheduled for 2025, likely in October.
Section 3: Importance of Vision and Consistency in Politics
Jacobsen: What is the most important aspect of your approach to politics?
Bernier: For me, the most important aspect of politics is having a vision, clearly explaining it, and communicating it to Canadians rather than trying to appease everyone daily. Many people perceive politicians as inconsistent—saying one thing today to gain approval and something entirely different tomorrow. For us, coherence, consistency, and credibility are paramount. Since founding the party in 2018, we have maintained the same principles, strengthening our credibility. People know we are serious about what we say, and time is on our side.
To illustrate, I will share an anecdote about COVID-19. When we began advocating for individual freedom and freedom of choice during the pandemic, it was initially unpopular because most Canadians had been influenced by fear and government propaganda. At the time, most of the population supported strict lockdown measures and other mandates. No one—at either the provincial or federal levels—spoke for freedom during the pandemic.
Nobody in Parliament was advocating for freedom at either the provincial or federal levels. I was the only one at the national level. Individual freedom has always been a part of our DNA as a party. Now, many people understand that the measures implemented in 2020 and 2021 were wrong. The vaccine was not as safe or effective as claimed. Everything we said—that lockdowns were not helpful and harmed students and young children—turned out to be correct. At the time, however, we were dismissed as crazy.
That’s what the People’s Party of Canada represents. I share this because I want people to know that we focus on policies and aim to grow our support. It’s a winning formula—our vote share increased from 1.6% to 5%. Perhaps at the next election, we will double that. We’ll see. It’s a long-term vision.
Section 4: Foreign Policy Stance and Non-Interventionism
Jacobsen: Regarding foreign policy, you’ve emphasized security and prosperity for Canadians, non-interventionism, and reduced involvement in international conflicts unless they directly benefit Canadian interests. Could you elaborate on those positions?
Bernier: In Canada today, that’s why we have taken a strong position against the war in Ukraine—the proxy war between the U.S. and Russia. We’ve said that Russia is not our enemy and that Putin does not aim to conquer Europe. From the beginning of the conflict, we advocated for peace and negotiations. We were the only national political party doing so. Meanwhile, both Trudeau and Poilievre pushed for more financial aid to Ukraine. Canada has already provided approximately $15 billion, and we oppose that.
I’m pleased President Trump stated during his campaign that he would ensure peace in Ukraine. This reflects our non-interventionist stance. The same principle applies to the Middle East. Canada cannot change the situation; the U.S. holds all the influence. We see no role for Canada in interfering in that region.
Our foreign policy on peace resembles Jean Chrétien’s approach during the Iraq War. He chose not to participate in that war, affirming Canada’s independence. We can maintain a friendship with the U.S. while holding a different position, just as Chrétien did.
Section 5: Historical Perspective on Peace and Foreign Aid
Jacobsen: How do you view Canada’s history in terms of promoting peace and foreign aid?
Bernier: Historically, Canada has promoted peace, negotiations, and peacekeeping. That was the best approach then, and we should return to it. This philosophy also informs our stance on foreign aid. We want to end sending over $10 billion annually to other countries for projects like building roads in Africa or funding development banks owned by China. That is not Canada’s role.
Canada should, however, provide support during natural disasters or humanitarian crises. In those cases, we can and should step up. But our resources should primarily serve Canadians.Yes, we will be there, but not to support socialist projects promoted by the United Nations. You’ve emphasized putting Canada and our national interests first.
Section 6: Financial Policies and Reducing Government Spending
Jacobsen: Regarding financial policies, you mentioned $15 billion sent to Ukraine to support that war and $10 billion annually for foreign aid. Combining these two items represents a $25 billion expenditure in a single year. Considering Canada’s growing debt and inflation, many Canadians across the political spectrum are concerned about rising costs, taxes, and the affordability of goods and services. What are your public finance policies, particularly regarding reducing government spending and eliminating corporate welfare?
Bernier: By eliminating corporate welfare, which includes all federal subsidies to large corporations, we can save an additional $10 billion annually. This practice is fundamentally unfair. Small businesses, like mom-and-pop shops in Vancouver, cannot afford to hire lobbyists to secure subsidies in Ottawa, yet they pay taxes to fund these handouts. A better policy would be implementing a flat 10% business tax without subsidies for big corporations. This would not only save money but also create a level playing field.
Our goal is to balance the budget in the first year. Unlike Poilievre, who discusses addressing the budget without providing clear details, we are prepared to make the necessary cuts. Canada’s current deficit is approximately $60 billion, and the solution lies in creating a smaller federal government that respects provincial jurisdictions and refrains from interference.
We can cut foreign aid, eliminate subsidies to the mainstream media, and reduce unnecessary spending. For instance, the CBC receives $1.2 billion annually, while other media outlets like CTV and Radio-Canada also benefit from federal subsidies. By removing these subsidies, we could save $2 billion. Media outlets need to be truly independent and not reliant on government funding.
Balancing the budget is critical because failing to do so fuels inflation. Under Trudeau, Canada’s debt has doubled in just nine years—an amount that previously took 148 years to accumulate. While some claim that future generations will bear the burden, the reality is that we are paying for it now through the inflation tax. The Bank of Canada has been printing money out of thin air to finance this deficit, leading to inflation. When more money chases fewer goods, prices rise.
The government claims inflation is at 2%, but Canadians know it is closer to 5% or 6%. The only way to address this is by balancing the budget and setting a zero-inflation target. We are the only national political party discussing real solutions to inflation. Once we achieve a balanced budget, we can lower taxes, put more money back into Canadians’ pockets, and restore purchasing power, which is currently declining.
Our standard of living is declining. While the economy is growing due to mass immigration, the population growth appears to outpace the economic growth. The economy is growing, but with more people than economic growth can sustain, the result is that the economic “pie” grows, but individual slices become smaller. This means the GDP per capita is low. Over the past decade, we have not seen an increase in our standard of living. On the contrary, it has declined. This is one reason why Trudeau and the Liberals are unpopular today.
Even if the Liberals elect a new leader, I do not believe they can effectively address this issue. It is time for Canadians to vote for their values. If they want real change in this country, the People’s Party is the only alternative.
Section 7: Housing Affordability and Immigration
Jacobsen: According to population surveys, housing affordability is another pressing issue that concerns Canadians. Rising housing costs, whether rental or ownership through mortgages, make it challenging for newcomers and Canadians with long-standing roots to establish themselves. How does the PPC propose to address this issue, particularly regarding restrictive zoning regulations and high immigration levels?
Bernier: Our position on housing affordability differs from that of the Liberals and the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre. Both of those parties focus on building more housing. Poilievre’s solution is to promote high-rise developments in big cities, allowing more people to live in apartments. While this may provide some relief, I do not want Canada or cities like Toronto to resemble Hong Kong.
For me, the Canadian dream involves owning a house with a nice backyard. Over the past decade, we have built an average of 250,000 houses per year, but Statistics Canada estimates that we need over 700,000 houses annually to meet the demand caused by mass immigration.
The only viable solution at the federal level is to stop mass immigration. This is fundamentally a question of supply and demand. We cannot solve this issue on the supply side because building 700,000 houses per year is not feasible. Moreover, zoning decisions in large cities fall under provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
Poilievre has suggested overriding local decision-making, forcing cities to build more high-rises. This approach disrespects the choices of taxpayers and local governments, such as those in Toronto who elected their mayor. The PPC, however, respects provincial and municipal jurisdictions and does not support federal interference in zoning policies.
The real solution is to address the demand side by implementing a moratorium on immigration. Reducing the number of people entering the country can alleviate the housing crisis and make homeownership more attainable for Canadians.
Mass immigration impacts more than just housing. It affects our standard of living, our society’s cultural character, and our country’s social fabric. For example, last year alone, 1.2 million people immigrated to Canada—a significant number for a country of 40 million. Immigration accounted for 100% of our population growth last year. This increase didn’t come from Canadians having more children but from immigration.
We need to address this issue directly. With mass immigration, we are essentially telling newcomers they are welcome to maintain their culture, and the federal government even subsidizes cultural celebrations. For example, if someone from China wants to celebrate the Chinese New Year, the federal government provides subsidies. I have nothing against the Chinese New Year, but if people want to celebrate it, they should fund it themselves. Taxpayer money should not be used for this. Instead, the federal government should promote Canadian culture, history, and heritage.
By promoting multiculturalism, we’ve created ghettos in our country where people don’t learn English or French and struggle to integrate into society. This segregation leads to a lack of cohesion. The economic impact is also significant. Mass immigration places strain on healthcare services. Many newcomers require healthcare, yet our system is inefficient, with long waiting lists for surgeries. Adding more people to the system without increasing capacity is a recipe for disaster.
The solution is clear: we need a moratorium on immigration. This approach addresses not only the housing crisis but also the healthcare crisis and societal challenges. Our position is to prioritize Canadians and their prosperity rather than focusing on foreigners.
Section 8: Immigration vs. Carbon Tax in Upcoming Elections
Jacobsen: Immigration will likely be a major topic in the next election. How do you see it playing out compared to other issues, like the carbon tax?
Bernier: Immigration will be a significant issue in the next election. Poilievre, for example, wants the election to focus on the carbon tax, but that doesn’t address the most pressing issues. The house is on fire, and he’s talking about a tax. We need real solutions, and immigration is central to that.
Polls show that over 60% of Canadians support ending mass immigration, but Poilievre won’t discuss it. He panders to ethnic communities, trying to gain their support for more seats in Parliament. Every weekend, he puts on a new costume and panders to another group. I don’t do that. I work for Canadians first. My goal is for our people to prosper and for immigration to serve the national interest.
Immigration must be a critical topic in the next election. It affects housing, healthcare, and the overall well-being of Canadians. We need an election focused on real solutions, and I believe this will resonate with most Canadians who want to end mass immigration.
Mass immigration is under federal control, and we have the power to address it. If we look at other Western countries like the UK, France, and Germany, mass immigration has a destructive impact on their societies. Some areas have “no-go zones” where it’s unsafe. We must act now to prevent Canada from going down the same path.
We started this discussion on mass immigration six years ago, in 2019. We advocated for fewer immigrants at that time, and now the negative impacts are undeniable. Our position remains firm: we need a moratorium on immigration. That is our strong and clear position.
Section 9: Addressing Other Contentious Issues: Gender and Climate Change
Jacobsen: Immigration is one of several contentious issues. Other hot-button topics include gender and climate change policies. Given our limited time, can you summarize your positions in these areas?
Bernier: Absolutely. On gender, our position is straightforward: there are only two sexes. A child is never born in the wrong body. Policies promoting gender transitioning, especially for children, must end. A boy cannot become a girl, and a girl cannot become a boy. The establishment parties—including Poilievre’s Conservatives—voted for Bill C-4, which facilitates what we see as the mutilation of children. Our stance aligns with Donald Trump’s in the United States: gender ideology is damaging our society and families. We must promote parental rights and end the funding of “woke” ideas by the federal government. We are also clear that men should not compete in women’s sports or be housed in women’s jails. Common sense must prevail.
Our approach to climate change is equally clear. We will withdraw from the Paris Accord, as Trump did during his presidency. There is no climate emergency. Both Trudeau and Poilievre are committed to the Paris Accord, and while Poilievre opposes the carbon tax, he will likely impose additional regulations or taxes to meet the Accord’s targets. This is unnecessary spending on a non-emergency.
For us, climate has always changed and will continue to do so. CO₂ is not a pollutant—it’s a gas essential for life and food for plants. The hysteria around climate change is unwarranted, and we refuse to waste taxpayer money on it.
We need to stop all these crazy policies on climate change. More and more people realize that the narrative attributing all climate change to human activities oversimplifies a complex issue. Climate change is not an emergency. Unlike establishment politicians, we will withdraw from the Paris Accord.
Section 10: Clarifying the Concept of Gender
Jacobsen: A common question people raise in this context concerns gender. Given your stance on the existence of only two sexes, how do you address the concept of gender?
Bernier: They use the term “gender” to avoid saying “sex,” but for me, it’s clear: there are only two sexes, and there are only two genders. Gender is not determined by personality or what someone thinks they are. This ideology has infiltrated every level of society, from government to private corporations. I encountered this when I testified in court in Manitoba, and the judge asked me for my gender. My response was straightforward: “Can you not see that I’m a male?” This woke ideology has even reached corporations, but we’re starting to see pushback—companies like Disney and Bud Light are learning that “go woke, go broke” is real.
Section 11: Policies on Green Technology and Resource Development
Jacobsen: How do these positions extend into your policies on green technology, subsidies, and resource development?
Bernier: Our position is clear: we will not provide subsidies to the green industry or promote it in any way. We will repeal Trudeau’s restrictive legislation for the oil and gas industry to ensure Canada can fully utilize its natural resources. Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, we oppose using taxpayer money to fund corporate ventures. For example, the federal government gave over $10 billion to a single company to build batteries in Ontario, and Poilievre said nothing. This is unacceptable. No subsidies for the green industry—that’s our stance.
Section 12: Self-Defence and Criminal Code Amendments
Jacobsen: Before we wrap up, I have one more topic: self-defence. Do you support amendments allowing Canadians to possess and carry items like pepper spray for self-defence? How do you see this empowering individual?
Bernier: I believe allowing women to carry pepper spray, as they can in other countries, would provide an additional layer of protection. It’s not the ultimate solution to violent crime but can help. To truly address violent crime, we need to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences like murder. When I was a Conservative, the Harper government passed legislation to toughen penalties, but the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. The way forward is to reintroduce similar legislation in Parliament and make it resilient to judicial challenges.
That’s the solution. We must be tough on crime. We also propose changes to the Criminal Code regarding self-defence. Currently, in Canada, there are cases where someone defending themselves or their property with a firearm has been charged under the Criminal Code. These individuals were using firearms to protect themselves and their property.
We propose amending the Criminal Code to protect the right to self-defence. This would ensure that individuals acting in self-defence are not penalized.
Section 13: Interactions with Other Politicians
Jacobsen: One last question. You’ve mentioned Poilievre and Trudeau several times in this interview. On a more personal note, given that you all must do interviews, campaigns, and public events, do you interact with each other at these events? Do you generally get along on a personal level despite vigorous disagreements on policies?
Bernier: I know Pierre Poilievre. As you mentioned earlier, we both served in the Harper government. He’s a good guy and a very effective communicator. He relies heavily on anti-establishment slogans, which resonate because people are so fed up with the Liberals. It’s an effective strategy for him to position himself as the next prime minister.
Trudeau, on the other hand, is a different story. For him, it’s all about himself. I don’t have any contact with Trudeau or Poilievre at the moment. However, I expect to meet them during the national debates on TV, where I will participate alongside Poilievre and the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Before these debates, all the politicians gather in a green room for about half an hour. Generally, everyone is polite and civil, but our battles are about ideas. That’s why I’m in politics—to fight for ideas. I believe my vision for this country is the best. Others, like Trudeau and Poilievre, likely believe the same about their visions. Let’s have a debate and let Canadians decide after a meaningful discussion.
However, I do hope the next debates will be more productive. National debates can often be disappointing. We’ll have a strong moderator, and debates will help Canadians make informed decisions before choosing their next prime minister.
Section 14: Closing Remarks
Jacobsen: Excellent. Mr. Bernier, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bernier: Thank you for giving me this opportunity. If you need anything, please don’t hesitate to contact me or my team. It’s been a pleasure to join you today. Thank you for the invitation.
Jacobsen: Take care. Nice to meet you.
Bernier: Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Discussion
This interview with the Honorable Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), offers a detailed exploration of his foundational principles and policy priorities. Established in 2018 following Mr. Bernier’s departure from the Conservative Party of Canada, the PPC anchors its platform in four key principles: individual freedom, personal responsibility, fairness, and respect. Throughout the conversation, Mr. Bernier emphasizes the importance of consistency and coherence in political life—defining a clear vision, maintaining it over time, and communicating it directly to Canadians.
He outlines the PPC’s stance on several domestic and foreign policy issues. Domestically, Mr. Bernier advocates for significant reductions in government spending—eliminating corporate welfare, media subsidies, and foreign aid expenditures—to balance the budget and combat inflation. He challenges the rising cost of housing by calling for a “moratorium” on what he terms “mass immigration,” linking immigration levels directly to housing affordability. He further addresses government overreach in areas such as climate change policies and gender ideology, maintaining that Canada should withdraw from international climate agreements, repeal Bill C-4 related to gender transitioning for minors, and bolster self-defence rights within the Criminal Code.
In terms of foreign policy, Mr. Bernier supports a non-interventionist approach, drawing parallels to Jean Chrétien’s decision not to join the Iraq War. He criticizes Canada’s financial support for Ukraine and emphasizes that Canada should only intervene abroad under narrowly defined circumstances that serve national interests. Moreover, he proposes scaling back foreign aid in favor of focusing on natural disaster relief and other pressing humanitarian emergencies.
Finally, Mr. Bernier contrasts his positions with those of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. He expresses personal respect for Mr. Poilievre as a capable communicator but contends that neither Mr. Trudeau nor Mr. Poilievre offers substantive solutions to issues like rising inflation, mass immigration, and erosion of personal freedoms. Mr. Bernier views the next federal election—tentatively scheduled for 2025—as an opportunity for Canadians to debate and decide on the policies that best serve the country’s future.
Methods
The interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, conducted an in-depth, semi-structured interview with Maxime Bernier. The conversation took place in a format suited to both parties—either online or in person—depending on logistical considerations. With Mr. Bernier’s consent, the interview was recorded and then transcribed verbatim to ensure an accurate representation of his viewpoints. The transcript was subsequently edited for clarity and brevity, preserving the original substance of Mr. Bernier’s responses. This methodological approach yielded rich qualitative data on Mr. Bernier’s policy positions and political philosophy, allowing for an in-depth discussion of the PPC’s founding principles, current policies, and future aspirations.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 15). On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-4.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-4.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “On Politics in Canada 4: Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-4.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Ruslan Salakhutdinov, a distinguished UPMC Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University’s Machine Learning Department, stands as one of the most prominent figures in artificial intelligence research today. With a focus on deep learning, probabilistic graphical models, and large-scale optimization, Salakhutdinov has consistently been at the forefront of innovation in AI.
A defining aspect of his career has been his collaboration with Geoffrey Hinton, his doctoral advisor and the pioneer behind “deep belief networks,” a transformative advancement in deep learning. Since earning his Ph.D. in 2009, Salakhutdinov has authored over 40 influential publications, exploring topics ranging from Bayesian Program Learning to large-scale AI systems. His groundbreaking contributions have not only advanced academic understanding but also propelled practical applications of AI in industry.
Salakhutdinov’s tenure as Apple’s Director of AI Research from 2016 to 2020 marked a pivotal period in his career. During this time, he led significant advancements in AI technologies. Subsequently, he returned to Carnegie Mellon and resumed his academic pursuits, further cementing his role as a leader in the field. In 2023, he expanded his influence by joining Felix Smart as a Board Director, channeling AI’s potential to enhance care for plants and animals.
A sought-after speaker, Salakhutdinov has delivered tutorials at renowned institutions such as the Simons Institute at Berkeley and the MLSS in Tübingen, Germany. His research, widely cited by peers, underscores his enduring impact on AI and machine learning. As a CIFAR fellow, he continues to inspire the next generation of researchers while pushing the boundaries of machine intelligence.
Salakhutdinov’s journey in AI traces back to his undergraduate years when he was sparked by the seminal textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. His early work with Geoffrey Hinton laid the foundation for innovations in deep belief networks and deep learning. Today, his research focuses on building robust, autonomous AI systems capable of independent decision-making. Amidst the challenges of reliability, reasoning, and safety, Salakhutdinov’s work bridges the gap between cutting-edge theory and practical application, shaping a future where AI systems enhance human creativity and problem-solving.
Pictured: Ruslan Salakhutdinov. (Medium)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What first drew your interest to artificial intelligence as opposed to the intricacies of human intelligence?
Ruslan Salakhutdinov: My first interest in AI was during my undergraduate studies in North Carolina. A book by Peter Norvig and Stuart Russell, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, intrigued me. It was published in 1995 and sparked my interest in AI.
I decided to pursue graduate work in AI and applied to several schools. Luckily, I ended up at the University of Toronto, where I eventually started working with Geoffrey Hinton. A great turn of events led me to work in AI. I have always been curious about machines that can learn independently and perform creative tasks. The concept of building systems that can learn fascinated me when I began my undergraduate studies in the late nineties. At that time, the term “AI” wasn’t very popular; during my graduate work, the focus was more on machine learning and statistical machine learning.
The field was fairly statistics-oriented because it was perceived as a proper discipline. AI was often seen as a domain for people building decision support systems. Working with Geoffrey Hinton and his lab completely revolutionized my work. In the early days, around 2005 or 2006, Geoffrey Hinton began promoting deep learning and learning multiple levels of representation. I had just started my PhD, so I was in the right place at the right time.
As with anything in life, timing is crucial. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder of OpenAI, was my lab mate. We sat beside each other, and a few others were now driving much of this work across different companies and universities.
Jacobsen: Geoffrey Hinton has become a household name over the past year, largely due to his warnings about artificial intelligence. On the other hand, Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has offered a more balanced perspective. He emphasizes the need to understand and control AI systems and even suggests we might need to “pull the plug” if they act unpredictably.
Meanwhile, Ray Kurzweil’s visions of the law of accelerating returns and his almost spiritual pursuit of merging with AI to explore the cosmos evoke shades of Carl Sagan. The discourse surrounding AI is as diverse as the field itself.
Similar to a vector space, this diversity reflects how terms like AI, AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), and ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) carry varied interpretations. Why do you think these differing definitions persist?
Salakhutdinov: We lack a set of benchmarks or a standardized set of problems that would allow us to define these terms clearly. If we have a system that solves those problems, we’ve reached AGI. Or if we have a set of problems we’re solving, we’ve reached ASI. So, the definitions depend on whom you talk to. People like Geoffrey Hinton and Eric Schmidt say the academic community has potentially huge, existential risks.
And then you have people on the other side who say, look, we’re going to reach a point where these systems will be very intelligent. They’ll be smart and, at some point, will reach superintelligence. Still, we will probably go to the point of existential risk. There are risks associated with AI in general, and people are looking into those. One area that I specifically work on at CMU is building agentic systems or AI that can make decisions or take actions independently. So think about a personal assistant where you can say, “Hey, buy me the best flight I can get to San Francisco tomorrow.” The assistant will find the information and book the flight for you.
You can think of it as a personal assistant. And, of course, risks are associated with this because now you’re moving from systems like ChatGPT, where you ask a question and get an answer, to systems where you give a task, and the agent tries to execute that task. My personal feeling is that when it comes to AGI, I think about autonomous systems that can make decisions.
Where we are right now is unclear because we are experiencing rapid progress with ChatGPT and many other advancements. Will we continue this exponential growth or hit a ceiling? We’ll eventually hit the ceiling, and getting the remaining 10% or 15% of progress will be challenging, so these systems will be very useful.
At what point we will reach the true level of AGI—systems that are general enough to do anything for you—is unclear to me. People have predictions. For example, Geoffrey Hinton initially thought it would take less than 100 years. With the advent of models like ChatGPT, predictions have been accelerated to around 30 years. He’s saying it might be 10 years, but there’s still much uncertainty. Predicting anything beyond five years is hard because AI development can either accelerate with systems getting better, smarter, and more autonomous with strong reasoning capabilities—as we’re seeing with OpenAI’s models like GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 that can perform complex reasoning and solve hard math problems—or it could progress more gradually.
Jacobsen: In the coming years, we may see the emergence of profoundly analytical tools. When we speak of agency in AI, the term holds a very different meaning compared to human or animal agency. This evolution in large language models and AI systems seems to herald a new era. What are your thoughts on these agentic capabilities?
Salakhutdinov: You want to build systems that can be your assistant. Think of it as a system that handles all your scheduling, tasks, and whatever you need. It’s your financial adviser that gives you advice on your finances. It’s your doctor that gives you advice on your health. At some point, when I have conversations with my colleagues about this, some are saying that if you have an AI assistant that can do a lot for you, that’s close to AGI. Some people would call it AGI because the problem we see right now is that GPT is the best in coding—it’s the best in speed coding contests. People try to code something within a fixed period, and these systems are better than humans. And I said, “Okay, that’s good.”
And he said, “Well, aren’t you amazed? We have systems that can outcompete competitive coders right now.” The reason why it’s impressive but not making big rounds is that these systems are still not reliable. It’s not like I can delegate a task to the system and be 100% sure it will solve it. 80% sure that solving a task is not enough. This notion of hallucination and robustness in the system is missing at this point. That’s why, for example, in coding, it hasn’t replaced professional coders. It’s useful as a tool, but it hasn’t emerged to the point where I’m replacing all of them with AI if I have an organization with programmers.
AI is helping them write better code, but it hasn’t gotten to the point where this robustness and reliability is achieved. It’s like having a personal assistant, which is 80% correct. I don’t want a personal assistant who books my flights 20% of the time incorrectly. Right? That’s just not acceptable. So, this is where we are at this point. To get to AGI, we need the system to be robust to hallucinations. It’s not there yet.
Jacobsen: Are governments, policymakers, and economists equipped to handle the sweeping changes AI demands? For example, these systems will likely require access to significant amounts of personal data to make decisions, raising urgent concerns about data privacy. Additionally, the economic landscape could shift dramatically as corporations opt for AI solutions that outperform human employees. How should society navigate these dual challenges of privacy and employment disruption?
Salakhutdinov: These models we see today are very data-hungry and improve with more data, especially personalized data. If they know you, the decisions they make can be much better. That aspect is going to be important. There are regulations regarding what that would look like, which will soon be coming into place. These models are not yet at the point where they can be reliably deployed or fully useful.
Economists are doing some work on job displacement. How much of it will happen is still not clear. Still, someone gave me an example of a company that laid off several translators from one language to another because machines can do it better, cheaper, and faster. Translation from English to French is just one example. That’s worth considering, especially as these systems improve.
One question I always have is, when these systems reach the point where certain parts of our economy see displacement, what will governments need to do to retrain people? The next two years will be critical because if progress continues as it has over the last couple of years, the changes will be fairly quick. Usually, with humanity, if it takes a generation or two to adapt, it’s fine. But it’s a fast change if it happens over five to ten years. So yeah, that’s worth considering, as well as closely tracking how these models progress. By 2025, we will see this every year—an iteration of models coming out, like GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4.
We’re still waiting for GPT-5. Google has Gemini 2, you know, Gemini 2.4. It’s like, and this year will also be interesting because it’s the next stage of what’s frontier-based models, which consume more data and computing. So the question this year is, what will that gap be if we see GPT-5?
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt jokingly remarked that Americans might one day turn to Canada for hydropower due to the immense energy demands of advanced AI systems. What do you make of this observation, and how might the energy consumption of AI shape global resource dynamics?
Salakhutdinov: That’s true. And as these models become bigger, there’s now thinking about reducing the cost because you can’t afford it otherwise. More research should be done to build these models more efficiently and train them with less computation. Otherwise, the cost is going to be prohibitive.
Jacobsen: Jensen Huang recently noted that we are approaching the end of Moore’s Law, yet he highlighted transformative announcements at CES suggesting new hardware and software efficiencies. He described this as an “exponential on an exponential.” How do these compounding efficiencies shape your view of AI’s trajectory?
Salakhutdinov: So that’s true—for example, the hardware. If you look at NVIDIA, for example, some of their latest GPUs have massive improvements compared to five years ago. One thing is that as we achieve these efficiencies, we are reaching the point where we’re training these models on all of the Internet data. So, everything available goes into these models. And if you think about it, there’s no second or third Internet. So, data is limited based on what we have access to.
Much data is in the video space and images, like other modalities and speech. However, potentially, there will also be data that we call synthetically generated data—data generated by models that we can use to train and continue improving our models.
Jacobsen: There’s a concept I’ve been reflecting on—where we rely on limited data and generate artificial datasets through statistical extrapolation. What is the technical term for this approach, and how central do you see it becoming to AI advancements?
Salakhutdinov: That’s what artificial data means. For example, as these systems improve, you can generate artificial data from your model. There are ways of filtering and cleaning this data, which now becomes training data for the next model.
There are these bootstrapping pieces that you can do that work reasonably well. We still can’t just train on artificial data.
So, we still need real data. And how do we get this real data? I suspect multimodal models will use images, videos, text, and speech in the future. There’s a bunch of research happening—my former student, now a professor at MIT, is looking at devices that collect data and building these foundation models based on that. And so, but absolutely.
Now, compute is the case; data is the main workhorse. But data is important because you need to be able to clean it and curate it. I remember Microsoft doing this funny thing early on, announcing the Copilot project around 2022, right after ChatGPT. They were training the models, and somebody told Copilot, “Well, 2 + 2 is 5.” And the Copilot would say, “No.”
“It’s two plus 2, which is 4.” Then you say, “No, it’s five because my wife told me it’s 5.” The Copilot would say, “Okay, it’s 5.”
You know? So, things of that sort. “I agree with you. If you insist, I agree with you.” Or it would say, “Yeah.”
Or, at some point, it would say, “No, that’s incorrect.” And the user would say, “Well, you’re stupid.” And the Copilot would say, “Well, you’re stupid.” And so you get into this conversation where you’re an idiot. The Copilot would call you an idiot.
It would do this because much of the conversational data was taken from Reddit. If you look at Reddit, some conversations say, “Oh, here’s the right thing.” And somebody says, “No, you’re an idiot.” It’s this thing.
If you train on data like this, you get similar behaviour because the model statistically learns how conversations go. This is where mitigations come in: cleaning the data and understanding what’s needed. That’s also part of the process of building these models.
Jacobsen: Do we have a theoretical framework for determining the ultimate efficiency of a single compute unit? Or are we still in the realm of empirical guesswork?
Salakhutdinov: Yes. There is something called scaling laws.
The scaling laws were the idea that came up: “Look, we’re building a 500,000,000,000-parameter model. How much data do we need? What kind of accuracy do we expect to get? It’s very expensive to run this model, right?”
You can only do a single run to get that model. You can’t, like, try. And so what would happen is that you take smaller models and build these curves by saying, “Okay, this is how much data I have, this is how much compute I have, this is the accuracy that I get.”
“If I increase the data but keep the computer, this is the accuracy. If I increase the data and compute, I will get this.” So, you build this on small models and extrapolate further. And you say, “Okay, if I have that much more computing and data, this is the accuracy I’m expecting to have.” That was a guiding principle for a lot of existing model buildings.
But it’s also very hard to predict. Nobody’s been able to say, “Look, if we triple the compute and we triple the data, we’re going to reach AGI, or we’re going to reach ASI, or we’re going to reach the point where.” We get these scaling laws up to some point, but we don’t know what that will look like beyond.
Hard to predict. There is something whose initial thinking was that we throw more data, we throw more computing, and we get better models, which is what the industry is doing. There’s a second paradigm, which is what’s called test-time compute or inference compute, which is what these reasoning models are doing, which is to say, “Well, if you let me think more for a specific problem, if I spend more compute thinking about the problem, I can give you the answers.”
So, that’s part of the scaling laws to say we can get better systems. But again, no one has clearly defined what it would mean to reach ASI or AGI, so we are still not there. It’s not clear whether we’re going to get there.
Jacobsen: When we talk about AGI and ASI, the definitions seem to hinge on a mix of factors: computational power, neural network efficiency, and even evolutionary adaptability. Some argue that framing AGI around human intelligence sets a false benchmark, as human cognition itself is specialized and full of gaps. Should we redefine intelligence benchmarks in AI to account for these nuances?
Salakhutdinov: That’s a very good question. People associate AGI with human-level intelligence. But it’s unclear whether these systems can match human-level intelligence.
Because ChatGPT or any large language models are better at math than most people, does this mean they’re intelligent? There is something about human intelligence where you can extrapolate and reason and do things that machines can’t, at least at this point. They require these: There is an example where a machine can solve math or Olympiad competitions.
But then, when you ask it, like, “What is bigger, 9 or 9.11?” the model gets confused and says, “Well, nine is bigger than 9.11.”
Jacobsen: There are clear gaps in AI systems’ reliability—areas where common sense might dictate one course of action, but machines falter. While AI excels in tasks like drafting and summarizing, it struggles with others, like physical intelligence in robotics. A robotics expert once quipped that the first company to build a robot capable of unloading a dishwasher will become a billion-dollar enterprise. What are your thoughts on this divide between theoretical AI capabilities and practical applications?
Salakhutdinov: It is. But it still gives you this notion that it’s very hard to predict because, 10 years ago, people would have thought that building creative machines—machines that can draw creative pictures or write creative text—would be far more difficult than the robot unloading your dishwasher. And it’s just completely the other way around at this point.
I can prompt them all. They can do very good creative writing for me, improve my writing, generate realistic-looking images, and compose things in interesting ways—for designers, for example. These are amazing tools.
It points to the problem of predicting five years. People like Geoffrey Hinton, Eric Schmidt, and others are ringing the bell because they say, “Look, there is a non-zero chance these models will become very dangerous.” And I buy that. I don’t buy the whole Skynet future. These robots—where these models or AIs will say we don’t need humans and have full control. I don’t see that in the future, but as I’ve mentioned, it’s always hard to predict what will happen in five to ten years. So, we need to consider everything. I think that one time when I was talking to Geoffrey Hinton last time, I asked him, “Why are you so worried?” I think he was saying he’s worried but wants to make sure that some of the resources are allocated to safety research and, like you said, understanding the economy, job displacement, how these systems can be more robust, and how to conduct safety research.
That has never been the priority, at least until now. I agree with that. We need to do more work, research, and more—people are focusing more on capabilities and building more capable and better models. At the same time, we need people who understand these models’ safety aspects, robustness, economics, etc.
Jacobsen: Among your peers in the AI field, who do you consider the most consistently accurate in their predictions? Is there a figure whose insights have particularly resonated with you?
Salakhutdinov: This is a difficult question. I don’t know anyone who has consistently been accurate in their predictions.
Jacobsen: I wondered if the public has an accurate picture because they use many of the same terms. The definitions are a bit off. That leads to too much confusion about how people report this to the public and how they are taking it in. A long time ago, AI was about machine learning, statistical engines, etc. Still, these were quite distinct areas of specialization. They were almost niche. Now, though, they’re front and center as if they’re exactly one thing. That’s probably the area of confusion, but this will help clarify. Nice to meet you, and thank you so much for your time today.
Salakhutdinov: I appreciate it. Nice meeting you as well. Thanks for doing this.
Marichka Baysa is a Ukrainian advocate and creative professional in Canada. Her career spans communications, legislative support, and legal advocacy, underscoring her multifaceted commitment to social impact and effective engagement. As a Communications Advisor with Ontario’s Ministry of Children, Community, and Social Services, Marichka honed her expertise in crafting strategies that bridge policy and community needs. Her role as External Relations Director for SUSK: Ukrainian Canadian Students’ Union further reflects her dedication to fostering community resilience and cultural solidarity.
Her work extends beyond advocacy to tangible contributions in shaping public policy and community outreach. Marichka proudly highlights the Ontario government’s recent achievements, including the integration of the Holodomor into school curricula and the declaration of September as Ukrainian Heritage Month—both crucial steps in honoring Ukraine’s history and legacy. Through SUSK, Marichka has spearheaded efforts to support Ukrainian newcomers, secured grants for young artists, and championed equitable access to education by advocating for domestic tuition rates for international students.
In this conversation, Marichka passionately discusses the challenges and opportunities of connecting with Canada’s growing Ukrainian diaspora, which has expanded significantly since the war. Her insights draw from personal experience, including her internship at Pace Law, where she provided critical support to Ukrainian immigrants navigating the complexities of permanent residency and related services.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Damindu Singith | Toronto Photographer (@damindusingith)
Outside public policy and advocacy, Marichka expresses her creativity through fashion. With her brand, Livivna, she integrates Ukrainian traditions into her designs, showcasing a commitment to cultural preservation through contemporary aesthetics. Her work reminds us that culture, even amid adversity, can be a powerful force for unity and resilience.
Dedicated to fostering critical dialogue and meaningful engagement, Marichka embodies a vision for Ukraine’s future that is both hopeful and grounded in action. Her story is one of advocacy, creativity, and an unwavering drive to make a difference for Ukraine and its diaspora, both in Canada and beyond.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for agreeing to this interview, Marichka. In the context of communications, administrative tasks, children’s services, and community work, what key skills are most critical for Ukraine’s efforts during the war, especially in mobilizing support and spreading awareness?
Marichka Baysa: The Ontario government greatly supports Ukraine and has provided significant funding. I was thrilled last year when the Minister of Education, Stephen Lecce, announced that the Holodomor would become an official part of the Ontario school curriculum. This was a monumental decision that had not been achieved in years, even though the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada is one of the largest in the world.
Additionally, just last month, I was honoured to be at Queen’s Park when the Ontario government announced that September would be proclaimed Ukrainian Heritage Month. The Canadian and Ontario provincial governments are doing much for Ukrainians, and I am incredibly grateful for their support. They are providing immense help, including significant funding. Furthermore, many immigrants and refugees from Ukraine are experiencing an expedited process to obtain permanent residency (PR), health cards, and other essential services.
Unfortunately, other immigrant groups often face longer waiting periods or more complex processes to obtain the same documents. However, since the war began, the Ontario government has demonstrated exceptional support for Ukraine, and their efforts have made a substantial difference.
Jacobsen: You’ve been active with the Ukrainian Canadian Students Union (SUSK). Have there been any notable collaborations with CASA or your local student union? These partnerships might not always involve financial backing but could include media support, political advocacy, or issuing joint statements. Could you elaborate on such initiatives?
Baysa: As an external director for SUSK, the Ukrainian Canadian Students Union, the organization is run by dedicated individuals who are committed to supporting newcomers from Ukraine. While SUSK is specifically a student union and, therefore, not entitled to assist everyone, we provide significant support to newcomers currently enrolled in schools, universities, and colleges.
Several grants are available for newcomers. For example, we recently launched a $30,000 grant for young artists who are ethnically Ukrainian or working on Ukraine-related projects. This initiative is designed to encourage newcomers to continue pursuing their passions.
Additionally, we are working on a long-term project to help students who arrived after the war pay domestic tuition fees instead of international fees.
International fees are often unaffordable for newcomers without permanent residency, who are therefore ineligible for OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program). As a result, many young people are unable to continue their education. However, we previously ran a similar program in collaboration with the University of Toronto, where students from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy were granted accommodations. We want to establish more programs like this in the future.
They would be exchange students from Ukraine attending the University of Toronto. The University of Toronto would fully fund their stay, covering tuition, residency, and food costs.
The program has not run since the full-scale war. Unfortunately, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy decided to close the program and redirect the funds for internal purposes at the Academy back in Kyiv. But, yes, we had that program, and I helped students apply for it. It was nice.
I am so proud that most received scholarships at the University of Toronto. Many were offered the chance to stay longer to pursue their master’s degrees, which was funded by scholarships. Additionally, many received scholarships in the United States and from other universities.
We don’t have direct funding to help students, but we provide consultations. Whenever we know about developments within Canadian politics, government laws, or any available grants or funding opportunities, we communicate this information to students, young people, and families. This gives them more opportunities to explore and benefit from.
Jacobsen: What role do financial challenges play for those fleeing Ukraine and seeking refuge in Canada during the war? What obstacles have you observed or experienced?
Baysa: Financial barriers are an issue, but we try to address them by providing information on available resources. However, social and cultural barriers can also be significant.
Jacobsen: Beyond financial constraints, what social barriers do Ukrainian newcomers encounter as they work to integrate into Canadian society? How are these challenges being addressed—or not?
Baysa: That’s a yes-and-no type of question because it’s a bit controversial. On one side, when you come to Canada after the full-scale war, there is already a large, even enormous, Ukrainian diaspora here. For example, I live in Etobicoke, and most of my neighbours are Ukrainians. Even if someone doesn’t speak English or only knows the basics, they can still feel connected to the community because so many Ukrainians have already immigrated. While it may not feel like home, it provides a sense of belonging.
However, for newcomers, everything is still very unfamiliar. Everyone speaks English, and it takes time to understand and adapt to the new environment. But it’s not as challenging as it used to be.
Joe Biden with Ukrainian refugees in Warsaw, Poland. (Adam Schultz)
Jacobsen: When you reflect on these issues, how do today’s circumstances for Ukrainian newcomers differ from those of a decade ago?
Baysa: People who immigrated 10 or 15 years ago faced greater challenges. Back then, there were fewer Ukrainians in Canada, and you wouldn’t hear Ukrainian spoken on the streets. Yes, we had cultural festivals maybe once or twice a year, but that was it. People didn’t know much about Ukraine; many mistakenly thought it was still part of Russia.
After the full-scale war, awareness about Ukraine has increased significantly. People are much more educated about Ukraine now, which has made integration easier for recent immigrants.
I’m talking about Canadians and people internationally. They’ve become more educated about the fact that Ukraine has been independent for more than 30 years and is not part of Russia. Of course, there is the Russian-Ukrainian language dynamic—we speak both languages—but primarily, it’s Ukrainian.
It’s not true that all of Ukraine speaks Russian. The cultures are different. So, yes, Canadians have become more educated and welcoming. I don’t see significant problems for immigrants coming here. The only real barrier is the English language, which they need to communicate with their work colleagues or other non-Ukrainian, English-speaking individuals.
Otherwise, coming to Canada right now as a Ukrainian immigrant would not leave someone feeling lonely or lost. They would feel somewhat at home, part of the diaspora, because we have a significant Ukrainian community here.
We have concerts almost every month, community events, and many churches. New Ukrainian-owned restaurants and coffee shops have opened, hiring Ukrainian workers and providing them with jobs. I’m proud to see all of this growth. Unfortunately, the circumstances driving this are not pleasant.
For example, I’m deeply involved in the arts. Ukrainian galleries have hosted more exhibitions about the war, Ukraine, and Ukrainian artists, and people are becoming more involved. I advise newcomers to connect with other Ukrainians, talk with friends, and attend events. They won’t feel lonely or encounter significant social barriers.
Jacobsen: During your internship at Pace Law Firm, you worked on immigration cases and advocated for clients. What insights did you gain from these experiences, and how did you approach advocacy for individuals navigating Canada’s immigration system?
Baysa: That was an incredible opportunity, and I was lucky to get it. I was recommended for the internship and worked with many Ukrainian lawyers. They weren’t recent immigrants; most had been in Canada for many years.
One of the lawyers I worked with was born here, and his parents were Ukrainian. He was also the nephew of a famous opera star, which surprised me. It was a small world—I discovered that all three lawyers I worked with were from my hometown, Lviv, which was amazing.
When I first came to Canada, during my initial months, I joined Pace Law, and I thought, “Wow, this is incredible!” I didn’t know much about which law firms were highly regarded then, but it was a great experience. I was excited to work with Ukrainians, even though all the processes and work were in English. There were no problems with communication, and the experience was invaluable.
I was happy that Pace Law helped many Ukrainians. The particular Ukrainian lawyer I worked with, an immigration lawyer, made a big impact. He even offered discounts for his services. While they couldn’t handle all the cases pro bono, he still helped many people by providing free consultations.
(Mirek Pruchnicki)
He offered guidance on obtaining permanent residency (PR), completing immigration paperwork, and handling the process independently without needing to pay a lawyer or consultant. That was incredibly kind of him, and he helped so many people. He also taught me a lot about immigration processes, such as filling out proper documents, using appropriate language in letters, and other essential details.
With that knowledge, I helped many others seeking assistance with their PR applications, health card applications, and other services. Some of these people I initially helped as strangers are now my good friends here in Canada. I’m so happy that many of them have received their approvals. Some are already permanent residents, while others are still waiting.
I am grateful for what I learned from that lawyer and others at Pace Law because it allowed me to help others for free. Coming to a new country without knowing the language, lacking family or friends, and having limited finances can be very challenging. Offering help to those in need felt incredibly rewarding.
Jacobsen: You’ve been involved in multiple organizations, including student unions. As someone who has held leadership roles, such as VPFA in university and on CASA committees, what drives your commitment to these activities, internships, and volunteer efforts to give back meaningfully?
Baysa: Sure. First, the internships were not unpaid; they paid me because they were full-time jobs. While the title was “internship” or “summer student,” it was essentially a full-time role. However, the volunteer roles with organizations like student unions were unpaid, of course.
My involvement stems from missing home. Back in Ukraine, I danced, performing Ukrainian national dances and ballet. I also attended art and music school, where I played the violin. I miss Ukrainian life’s artistic and cultural aspects, so I joined as many organizations as possible here in Canada. I wanted to be involved in everything related to our culture.
The only challenge I face now is the lack of time. Sometimes, I have multiple events scheduled for the same day and hour and must choose between them. Overall, I love being with people, performing, and showcasing the incredible Ukrainian culture. Promoting and celebrating it is essential.
Being part of SUSK is amazing. I meet many wonderful people, attend events, and stay connected to my roots. I love going to events—it’s one of my favourite activities. Sharing our culture with Canadians and people from other countries is a privilege, and I hope to continue doing so for as long as I can.
I love talking and making new connections. Some are useful, and others are just interesting. Considering my current job, all those meetings, networking opportunities, and events are incredibly helpful. You never know where you’ll end up or who you’ll meet.
For example, at the Rebel Ukraine conference, I already knew many of the politicians who attended. It wasn’t the first time I met them. Instead, it was more like, “Oh, hey! Nice to see you again,” which was pleasant. We’re grateful for their support and for taking the time to come to Toronto. For example, I know James Bezan, a Member of Parliament in Canada. He’s very busy, so his commitment to spending an entire day supporting Ukraine meant a lot to me, SUSK, and Ukrainians in general.
It’s the same with Minister Lecce, Ontario’s Minister of Education, and the Minister of Energy. Both have shown incredible support for Ukraine. For instance, they attended the same conference in Poland a month before it came to Toronto, showing their continued commitment to Ukraine. Those connections are invaluable.
I enjoy joining all these volunteer organizations. I love talking to people, helping others, and being helpful whenever possible. At the same time, I also promote Ukrainian culture. I want to highlight that many Ukrainians in Canada still need help but are also hardworking, smart, educated, and resilient. Ukraine has a rich history, a vibrant culture, and incredible people; I want others to recognize that.
I see myself as a bridge between Canadian society and the Ukrainian diaspora. Many Ukrainians who recently arrived in Canada tend to stay within the diaspora because it feels like a small, close-knit town where everyone knows everyone. It’s almost a joke now in Toronto that every Ukrainian knows another Ukrainian, and honestly, it’s true.
At the Rebel Ukraine conference, I knew almost everyone from Toronto and Ottawa who attended because of previous conferences earlier that week. The only people I met for the first time were those who had come directly from Ukraine, such as the businessman Joachim. It’s funny how interconnected the community is.
Jacobsen: Advocacy for Ukraine comes with challenges. What have been some downsides to your work in unifying support for Ukraine? Are there disagreements—not about the need for aid but about how that aid should be delivered?
Baysa: Of course, there are disagreements. The biggest downside for me is the time commitment. Advocacy work takes up my free time and sometimes even cuts into my work time. For example, on the day of the Rebel Ukraine conference, I had to leave work early to attend on time. Balancing my work life with my personal life can be challenging, especially since I’m so devoted to Ukraine.
But ultimately, it’s worth it. Advocacy, connections, and cultural promotion are not just activities—they’re my passion. Even if they’re exhausting, I feel fulfilled knowing that I’m contributing to something bigger than myself.
It takes a lot of effort and time, and many people collaborate to get things done. One person cannot accomplish this alone. I strongly believe in teamwork. Without a good team and supportive people around you, success is almost impossible.
There are always differences in opinion regarding support. Canadian society, the Ukrainian community in Canada, and even Ukrainians in Ukraine all have their perspectives. The challenge I’ve observed is that everyone has their own opinion and believes they are right, which can lead to disagreements. Nobody wants to compromise; everyone wants to proceed with their idea of what’s right. However, listening to everyone and finding common ground is crucial—a shared path to providing support effectively.
For example, some Ukrainian Canadian organizations offer scholarships and grants to students. Recently, a debate arose about prioritizing newcomers over Ukrainian Canadians born here. The foundation prioritized newcomers, which some believe is unfair, while others consider it fair. I understand both sides. Ukrainian Canadians born here may feel undervalued because they are given priority.
In contrast, newcomers may feel unvalued due to language barriers and the challenges of adapting to a new country. These conflicts are minor but still present. Hopefully, they’ll be resolved soon.
It’s not easy to reach an agreement quickly. Finding one common idea for moving forward takes time, discussions, and meetings.
Jacobsen: Cultural preservation often plays a pivotal role in national defense, reminding people why the fight matters. With Ukraine’s distinctive culture, particularly in fashion and aesthetics, how have you incorporated Ukrainian traditions and styles into your work in the fashion industry?
Baysa: Thank you for asking. It’s very kind of you. I don’t usually talk about my artistic and fashion side with Canadians. Most of the time, we discuss my work or Ukraine in general. But fashion is my passion, as I like to say.
I am a tailor by profession. My grandmother was the first to teach me how to sew and tailor clothing, and I’m so grateful to her for passing on those skills. That’s how it all started. I also attended art school and studied the history of the arts back home, earning a Bachelor’s in the History of the Arts.
When I came to Canada, I pursued my childhood dream of becoming a fashion designer. That dream started when I was about 10 or 11 years old. I can’t remember exactly when, but it was always in my heart. So, I found my way to Toronto Metropolitan University to begin that journey.
Before it was called Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), it was known as Ryerson. It has a great fashion program. I was lucky to meet another Ukrainian girl who went through the program. She’s graduating next year, so I asked her how it was, and she said, “It’s great. You should join if you love it and know how to do it.”
Since I had the opportunity and OSAP was available, I thought, “Why not?” That’s when I started. For the big final project of the year, we were tasked with creating our brand concept.
In my first year at TMU, our final project involved building the concept of our brand. This included designing graphics, creating descriptions, and other branding elements. Since I already had experience doing that kind of work, so I thought, “Why not launch my brand instead of just making a concept?” That’s how I started my brand, Livivna, named after my hometown, Lviv. It was also a long-time dream of mine, so I’m proud of it.
Livivna combines fashion and art. Its clothing is tailored specifically to each client, with hand-painted designs on top. The painted designs are permanent, so you can wash the clothing as often as possible, and the paint won’t fade or come off. People often ask, “Can you wash it?” I always say, “Yes, of course!” I’m happy with how it turned out—it’s truly a fusion of my passions for art and fashion.
Since I was already well-connected with the Ukrainian community, I started receiving invitations to Ukrainian community events. One notable event is the Okta Party, which happens every May, usually at the beginning of the month. It’s like a fashion show, bringing in talented designers to showcase their styles while celebrating the richness of Ukrainian culture. It’s a great way to engage with the community and so much fun. If you’d like, I can send you more details about it.
The organizer of the Okta Party is a Ukrainian-Canadian who was born here. He’s a wonderful, outgoing person who runs his cosmetic brand. He’s well-connected and regularly invites Ukrainian stars and singers to perform. For example, we had Alona Alosha last year, and the year before, he brought Tina Karol, a famous singer from Ukraine. I can send you his contact information, and you can contact him. He knows a lot and might be an interesting person to connect with.
The first invitation I received from him was to participate in one of his fashion shows, which was an amazing experience. He also organized the second event I joined—the Ukrainian Bloor Festival, which happens every year on Bloor Street. They close off lanes from Jane Street to Runnymede, dedicating all that space to a three-day Ukrainian festival celebrating our culture. It’s incredible! We also had a fashion show there.
I’ve also participated in a few fashion shows with Canadian organizers. Still, those events weren’t as big as the Ukrainian ones. The sense of community and cultural pride at the Ukrainian events is unparalleled. I feel so fortunate to be part of it all.
Recently, I launched a new collection for kids. My friend, who owns a modeling school and agency, suggested the idea, and I thought it was fantastic. That’s why I created the collection. We showcased it at my last fashion show for this year, which took place two weeks ago. It was fantastic and brought me so much joy. I’m very happy about it.
Even now, that event has made me make even more connections. It was outstanding. When I mention my hobbies, people are often surprised when I say tailoring or fashion. They usually think it’s about wearing nice clothes or shopping, but for me, it’s about literally creating fashion—designing, tailoring, and painting.
Fashion is my passion. Through it, I’ve been able to combine both art and fashion. I’ve also incorporated Ukrainian elements because most of my paintings are related to Ukraine or feature my brand’s symbol: a lion and the traditional Ukrainian doll Motanka. It has been a rewarding journey, and I look forward to achieving even more next year. I plan to expand into Europe, which excites me.
Through fashion, I also became involved with SUSK. I learned about them when the SUSK president asked artists to donate art pieces for a conference at SCSCAD in May. I volunteered and donated three of my art pieces. That’s how I got to know them.
After learning more about SUSK, I wrote a few articles for them when asked. I fell in love with the idea of SUSK, its purpose, and the wonderful people involved. Everyone is so kind. I applied for both roles when I learned they sought an external director and a National VP East. I’m technically handling both positions since we haven’t found a second person yet, but I enjoy the work. That’s how fashion and art connected me to SUSK.
Jacobsen: Looking forward, how do you envision the interplay of political engagement, fashion, and professional development evolving over the next couple of years? How do you balance personal growth with your ongoing solidarity efforts for Ukraine?
Baysa: Honestly, I don’t have a clear idea yet. One of my dreams is to work for a major art gallery in New York. I plan to achieve that next year. We’ll see.
For now, I truly love what I’m doing. I enjoy my full-time job and all the Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian organizations I’m involved with, even as a volunteer. It has all become a passion for me, and I feel fortunate. Everything I have now came together in the last two and a half years since I arrived in Canada. I’m grateful for it all.
Of course, there are better achievements to come—maybe next year, maybe the year after. It will require a lot of planning and hard work. For now, I’ll stay in my current job for a while. And who knows? Politics are starting to seem interesting, too.
I encourage young people to educate themselves—not just about politics, but about everything. It’s so important. Especially if you’re Canadian, you should know at least something about your government. Don’t just listen to everything the news says.
For example, take CP24. Practice critical thinking. Interviews are one thing, but when reporters share their opinions or interpretations, the facts can sometimes be presented inaccurately or misleadingly. Please do your research. Learn about the political parties and the government and how they all work.
Understand that certain laws or regulations limit what government members—whether MPs, MPPs, or even the premier—can do. They don’t have the power to make sweeping changes, like declaring, “No taxes tomorrow” or, “Yes, taxes tomorrow.” The process is long and far more complex than many people realize. Educating yourself on these processes and applying critical thinking is vital. Don’t believe everything you hear from the news, newspapers, or even your neighbours. Question and verify.
The same applies to Ukraine. Unfortunately, much of the news about the war isn’t always accurate. Often, it’s far from the full truth. Canadian news, for example, might avoid openly condemning Russia or talking about the full extent of the atrocities committed.
For instance, no one discussed what happened in Irpin, a city near Kyiv. Russian soldiers tortured and raped children there, ultimately murdering them. They left behind mass graves when they retreated. This happened in Irpin, Nova Kakhovka, and other places but was never reported widely.
These horrific acts weren’t covered at all. The media might report on bombings, but trust me, bombings are not the worst things that happen in war. Far more horrific things are happening—and they’re still happening.
Soldiers held in captivity are tortured and murdered. When their bodies are returned to their families, they’re often so mutilated that they’re barely recognizable as humans. Some look like Egyptian mummies—I’m not exaggerating. This is the reality, but it’s rarely talked about because it’s deemed too shocking or inappropriate for the public. Yet, it’s the truth.
I urge everyone to think critically about what they read and hear. Be discerning about your sources. Question whom you’re listening to and verify the information you receive.
Jacobsen: How can media professionals covering the war better understand the realities Ukrainians face on the frontlines and within the diaspora?
Baysa: Ironically, I’ve seen more work done within Ukraine, including interviews with human rights advocates and others directly involved, compared to engagement with the diaspora here in Canada. The diaspora’s story isn’t as widely told, and I think that gap needs to be filled. Media professionals should dive deeper into the lived experiences of Ukrainians here and abroad to present a fuller picture of the war’s impact.
Jacobsen: Was your time in Toronto and Calgary your first exposure to the Ukrainian community within Canada’s diaspora? How did these experiences shape your understanding or approach?
Baysa: That’s a great question. Start by not simply listening to what the crowd says. Go directly to the people. Talk with the immigrants, the newcomers, and especially those who came from the eastern side of Ukraine—cities that have been bombarded and destroyed. Trust me, they will tell you so much more than you’ll hear elsewhere.
But before talking with them, do some research. You should have some knowledge of Ukraine’s history because it’s complicated. It’s not as simple as “Ukraine was there, and Russia suddenly decided to start a war.” It’s much more complex than that. Trust me, understanding the history is crucial.
If you still need help understanding, talk to Ukrainians or history professors. I know a few are in Toronto, particularly at the University of Toronto. They can provide clarification and deeper insights. You can also contact Ukrainian organizations involved in the arts or humanities—they can share much more about Ukraine’s past and present.
Though you’re already doing this, the best approach is to go to Ukraine yourself. See what’s happening on the ground. Take pictures and videos and share them with people. That’s the most direct and impactful way for media professionals to gather and present accurate information to the public.
Another recommendation would be to trust smaller or medium-sized media outlets rather than large corporations. Let’s be honest: not everything the big corporations say is accurate, and not everything they choose to share with the public is the whole truth. Most of what they publish has been preapproved or influenced by higher-ups, with certain narratives being emphasized while others are excluded. Often, it’s not in their interest to share everything about the war—or any topic.
Take the ongoing war in Gaza and Israel, for example. I’m sure there are many more details we don’t know and might never know. I’ve never been there, and I’m uneducated about their history. I know the broad strokes but not the intricate details or the nuanced conflicts they’ve had over the years.
For Ukraine, I would recommend talking to survivors. For example, speak with survivors of the Holodomor—there are still a few alive today. I know one survivor who lives in Toronto now. He’s a living testament to that part of history. Similarly, talk to survivors of the Second World War.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any living members of the UPA (the Ukrainian Insurgent Army formed during the Second World War), as most were either killed by the Russians or sent to Siberia, where they likely died.
Listening to these individuals, who have lived through such experiences, can provide an invaluable perspective. Their stories are crucial for understanding Ukraine’s history and the broader context of its current struggles.
Unfortunately, there are no records of those individuals, so you won’t be able to talk with them. But yes, talk with the senior generation. Please speak with the older generation and let them tell you what happened. This will give you a sense of living in the Soviet Union during the Second World War and in the nineties.
Each decade is entirely different, and there’s a huge contrast. For example, the seventies and nineties in Ukraine were vastly different—the society, worldviews, economics, financial status of the country, and mindset of the people all changed dramatically.
Technologies have also played a transformative role. During the Second World War, we didn’t have the technologies we have now. Modern technology, like drones, has wholly changed warfare. Ukrainian soldiers widely use drones, but unfortunately, the Russian army also uses them. Drones are easy to buy, easy to sell, and relatively inexpensive. They’re accessible to anyone—people can even donate them. If a drone is destroyed, it’s not like losing a million-dollar weapon; it can be replaced more affordably.
So yes, talk to the senior generation to understand the past, and talk with young people, students, and people from various backgrounds. This way, you’ll gain different perspectives and opinions from those in various circumstances. For instance, I am from the western part of Ukraine, where Ukrainian is my native and first language. However, in Eastern Ukraine, most people’s first language is Russian.
I don’t blame them for this, considering the history. During the Holodomor, when millions of Ukrainians died, Russia resettled Russians into Ukrainian cities. After the Holodomor and the Second World War, Ukrainians became a minority in those regions. Many Ukrainians were forced to speak Russian to survive and improve their living conditions.
Under the Soviet Union, my mother, grandmother, uncles, and the older generations were required to learn Russian in school. They had no choice. Russian language and literature were part of the mandatory school curriculum until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. It wasn’t optional; it was imposed on everyone.
Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, some schools in Eastern Ukraine continued teaching Russian for the next 20 to 30 years. So yes, talk with different people, get various opinions, and understand history deeply. That’s what I would say is the biggest issue for understanding this ongoing conflict and war—you need to learn history first.
You need to understand how Russia became what it is today. For instance, Kyivan Rus’ was not Russia—it was Ukraine. Russia took the name to make itself appear as a big country with a grand history, but that’s not true. Ethnically and originally, Russians came from Ukrainians. They stole our history, destroyed it, and then claimed all the accomplishments as their own.
For the past 300 to 400 years, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the Russian government have tried to erase Ukrainian history and culture. Their goal is to make Ukrainians believe they have no distinct culture and should be part of Russia. Learning history is important—people must educate themselves about these events and the languages involved.
When I came to Canada, one of the most common questions I received was, “Is Ukrainian the same as Russian?” No, it’s not the same. They’re slightly similar, but Russians don’t understand Ukrainian at all. They don’t speak or comprehend it. Russian originated from the Ukrainian language. That’s why understanding history matters.
I also advise against making biased statements without knowing the subject. People will get offended. If you have questions, I—and many other Ukrainians or knowledgeable individuals—would happily answer them, guide you, and help you understand.
Talk directly with people rather than relying on random articles on the Internet or news outlets like CP24. These sources rarely portray the full picture or show all the details. Many facts and events remain in the shadows, unmentioned by major media outlets.
Jacobsen: Is there anything you’d like to discuss that we haven’t touched on? So far, we’ve covered topics like politics, internships, immigration, fashion, outreach, and practical ways people can get involved.
Baysa: That’s it for now. Unfortunately, I have to go, but it was a great conversation. What you’re doing is truly inspiring. You’re not Ukrainian, yet you’re helping to raise awareness about Ukraine and encouraging others to do the same. That’s amazing. Doing this work is natural for me—I’m Ukrainian, so it’s expected of me. But for you, as a Canadian, it’s incredible. Please keep up the great work.
Jacobsen: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Baysa: You’re welcome. Thank you for the interview. Have a great day, and I genuinely appreciate what you’re doing for Ukraine.
Roslyn Mould, a prominent voice in the Humanist Movement, served as Secretary and Chair of the Young Humanists International African Working Group from 2014 to 2019 and later as a Board Member for Humanists International from 2019 to 2023. Mneka Mbanje, Programs Officer for Humanists Zimbabwe, and Cynthia Ndegwa of the Atheists in Kenya Society are joining her in this conversation.
Together, they delve into the deeply personal and often challenging journeys of transitioning from religious belief to atheism or freethought, focusing on the intersection of gender, culture, and societal norms.
The interview uncovers diverse pathways to questioning faith—pathways shaped by formative life events, cultural pressures, and the pursuit of intellectual clarity. Strikingly, the trajectories of men and women diverge significantly. While men often navigate deconversion with a certain assertiveness, women frequently contend with a labyrinth of societal expectations that tether morality and religiosity to their intrinsic value. Technology and social networks have emerged as lifelines for these individuals, enabling the creation of supportive, safe spaces in an often hostile environment.
Yet, the road to freethought is not without peril. Each interviewee spoke candidly about enduring discrimination and even threats as they carve out their place in a world where their beliefs challenge entrenched norms. Despite these hurdles, Humanist spaces offer not only refuge but also empowerment. The conversation ends on a hopeful note, envisioning a future marked by inclusive dialogues and a surge in female leadership within freethought communities—a step toward reshaping the narrative of belief and belonging.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Can you describe the pivotal moments you began losing faith? What factors or experiences led you to question your beliefs?
Mneka Mbanje: I can’t say I had one drastic moment of loss of faith; I think it was more of a corroding away of faith until I was enlightened. The more I went to church and interacted with believers, the more it dawned on me that it didn’t make sense, but more importantly, it didn’t reconcile with most of my core beliefs.
Roslyn Mould: My first recollection of when I started questioning was when my Mum passed away from a car accident when I was only 4 years old, and I had been told that God had called her to heaven. It was difficult to understand why a loving God would take my mom away from me and my sister, who was barely a year old.
I had no one to share these thoughts with, and over time, I convinced myself that there was God; it was difficult for me to understand his ways because I was just a child, and I came to believe that I would see my Mum again one day in heaven. My doubts started again when sometime in 2007, about 20 years later, I set on a quest to know and understand more about this complex god and know more about religion, especially Christianity, so that I could share this knowledge with my non-believing friends and on that journey, I came to realize that all that I firmly believed in for so long and had convinced myself to be true was not so and I deconverted myself.
Cynthia Ndegwa: My loss of faith first came in college. What I was studying ignited my curiosity to explore my spirituality outside my religion. Coming from a very structured denomination, I knew what I had discovered about my spirituality wouldn’t be welcomed. So, I slowly started to practice, and slowly, I felt disconnected from the other side.
Jacobsen: In your view, how does the experience of losing faith differ between men and women? Are there similarities that transcend gender, or are the differences more pronounced?
Mbanje: For most of the men I know, it’s a very similar story. Granted, their timelines tend to be quicker, where mine took almost ten years, and the longest male counterpart I know took 4 years from the time of beginning to question to fully realizing and embracing their atheist or non-religious inclination. More often than not, their journeys also tend to be more vocal and outspoken, leading to earlier realizations, whereas mine was more of an internal journey with less overt expressions.
Mould: My experience is quite different from almost everyone I know. It’s particularly different for men, especially those from the continent, because culturally, boys are allowed to explore more and are made aware of their privileges from a very young age, so the curious, smart minds tend to lose their faith earlier and in different circumstances than from an emotional point. Many also do not see why they need to lose their faith even if they have no evidence of God if religion and culture justify their privilege in society and make them feel more entitled and superior to women.
Ndegwa: Truthfully, the people I knew swung on one of the opposites: either going deep into their faith or completely disregarding anything religious or spiritual and focusing on facts.
Jacobsen: What key steps did you take to discover and integrate into a freethought community? How did you navigate the process of building connections within this space?
Mbanje: I put myself out there and own my beliefs unabashedly. When I stopped trying to sugarcoat or dress up some of my beliefs as tentative ideas, I realized that people began to take me more seriously and engage with me more in-depth. This led to finding people willing to open up about their beliefs, and eventually, I found more like-minded people.
Mould: My younger sister, Monika, eventually became an atheist. On Twitter, I discovered other Ghanaian atheists, and she became one of the first people to meet them in person. Later, she invited me to join their social meetups, which led to the birth of the group that is now the Humanist Association of Ghana. A year later, we became members of IHEU (now Humanists International).
In 2014, I became the first Ghanaian to be elected for a position in the Youth section’s IHEYO African working group. By 2016, I was the President of the Humanist Association of Ghana. These positions led me to be a Coordinator for the West African Humanist Network, a Board member, and the First African Vice President of Humanists International.
Having these leadership positions and being entrusted with them has taught me that the keys to having a successful, active group are being passionate, creating and protecting the safe space where atheists find themselves at all costs necessary, and finding creative ways to keep everyone equally engaged and included.
Finding my community meant I could be myself with like-minded people, and it took working hard to create and build the Accra Atheists group. I am still on a quest to seek atheists in Ghana and to let them know that they are not alone. Staying to your objectives and values takes time, focus, dedication, and striving to grow.
Ndegwa: I would say it’s a mix of chance, divine timing, and technology. From the get-go, I found it easier to be more authentic about my interests and beliefs in my profiles and bios. That way, my in-depth intros would either deter the wrong people or attract the right people. Technology, however, has played a considerable role.
Jacobsen: I’ve encountered varying perspectives on whether the transition from a religious community to a freethought one is shaped by gender. Some women perceive it as a distinctly gendered experience, while others don’t. Has your identity influenced this journey as a woman, or do you believe it has been more individual than gendered?
Mbanje: The transition has been very gendered for me because there is a strong tie between a woman’s worth in my society, their morality, and their religious activity. The more overtly religious a woman is, the more ‘womanly’ she is perceived to be, and she is attributed desirable characteristics regardless of ethics and character.
I’ve had many times where my character has been called into question due to my atheist beliefs. I’ve had thinly veiled threats of physical and sexual harm directed towards me from both acquaintances and close family/ loved ones as well. I’ve lost quite a few partners and job opportunities as a result.
Most recently, after an accident at work that left me incapacitated for weeks, I was then unfairly dismissed because I was a ‘devil worshipper.’
I’ve come to realize, though, that it’s a by-product of ignorance and society’s rigidity. I’ve also met people who initially wrote me off as an unethical monster but later on, after taking time to speak to me and hear my core beliefs, have come to acknowledge that a lack of faith in a deity or anything else for that matter does not equal an unscrupulous and ‘evil’ life.
Mould: I can say it has been gendered for me because religious communities have more women, if not an equal number of men, to being in a Humanist community and being in the minority as an atheist in society and even more, as a woman in the freethought community. I have felt more liberated as a woman within the Humanist community than I ever was as a Christian, and especially being a leader of majority men groups has shown that I use every opportunity given me to sit at the table with people sharing ideas regardless of gender. Humanists are far more conscious of equality issues, and I am proud to be a part of that.
Ndegwa: I’d be inclined to say that my experience transitioning to a freethought community has had a more female population than a male population for various reasons.
Women are more inclined to connect with spiritual practices, even organized religions, through prayer, practices, etc. Also, from a female perspective, the formation of spiritual practices has generally been more inclined. Women have been more open about their transitions to freethought thinking and open to diversity within these schools of thought.
The opportunity to be free from constraints often propagated in organized religions, such as patriarchy, capitalism, sexuality, feminine energy, and feminism, has drawn more women to this side. As a result, we have talked freely about taboo topics without judgment.
Jacobsen: What questions would you like to pose to the other participants in this discussion? What are your aspirations for the ongoing dialogue within this group?
Mbanje: I hope this group opens up a more female-friendly discussion for free thinkers, especially within the African community. It would go a long way toward helping other free-thinking women realize that they’re not alone in their struggles and that there are more women in their shoes.
Mould: I am curious to hear their stories of deconversion and how they have encouraged other women to join the community and supported women in leadership roles. Years ago, I started a WhatsApp group for African Humanist women. I hope this will be another opportunity to revamp the group and form our community within the Humanist Space.
Ndegwa: I would love to learn more about everyone’s journey and your aims for yourself as a woman in this complicated world.
I also hope we get to have a physical forum. That would be great.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, everyone.
Eva Quiñones Segarra, a Río Grande resident, has long advocated secularism and humanist values in Puerto Rico. Her journey began at a Catholic school in Guaynabo, where she graduated in 1984 with a religion medal—despite her departure from faith years earlier. She went on to study agricultural sciences at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, specializing in livestock industries, before earning her Juris Doctor from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico in 2001.
As one of Puerto Rico’s leading secular voices, Quiñones actively challenges legislation undermining the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Her advocacy extends across media platforms, including radio and television in Puerto Rico, the United States, and Peru, where she addresses public interest issues through a humanist lens.
Since joining Humanistas de Puerto Rico in 2011, Quiñones has become a key figure. She played a pivotal role in the first Regional Convention of American Atheists in Puerto Rico and has internationally represented the Puerto Rican secular community. At the heart of her work lies a deep connection between humanism and the promise of nuclear energy—a topic she champions to deliver reliable, sustainable power while advancing human development.
During our conversation, Eva Quiñones Segarra discusses the intersections of humanism, energy policy, and Puerto Rican cultural dynamics, offering a rare insight into the evolving landscape of secularism in Latin America.
Pictured: Eva Quiñones Segarra. (Humanistas de Puerto Rico)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’ve drawn connections between humanism and nuclear energy. Can you outline your perspective? What makes nuclear energy a compelling solution from a humanist viewpoint?
Eva Quiñones: My pitch is that nuclear energy can power the entire planet because it provides energy 24/7. Many people worldwide do not have access to electricity and need it at night. Nuclear energy can help lift people out of poverty by providing reliable access to electricity, enabling them to enjoy the advantages we take for granted. As humanists, we must promote technologies that contribute to human well-being.
Many people still rely on cow dung or wood for heating and cooking. Nuclear energy can reduce the time spent on such basic tasks, allowing people to pursue other endeavors or work on different projects. For example, if a woman has a refrigerator, she doesn’t have to go to the market daily. This enables children to study at night and help their mothers during the day. Electricity is valuable because it supports access to more technologies, provided it is reliable and, ideally, affordable.
Another critical aspect of nuclear energy is that it does not rely on weather conditions. For example, in Puerto Rico, where I live in the Caribbean, the sun sets around 6 p.m., and wind generation often decreases in the evening, reducing energy output at night. Batteries, which are used as backups, pose environmental challenges due to the difficulty of recycling the materials they contain. If countries like China reduce their acceptance of electronic waste, recycling becomes even less feasible, making nuclear energy a preferable option.
Nuclear energy is nearly renewable in that while reactors need to be constructed, the fuel requirements are smaller than the extensive mining needed for renewable technologies. The U.S. and Canada do not control significant reserves of rare earth minerals needed for solar panels and batteries, so nuclear energy can contribute to energy independence in these regions. Additionally, mining operations for minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel often have poor environmental and human rights records, similar to blood diamonds concerns.
In this context, nuclear energy supports human flourishing in a way that can be better for humanity overall. I emphasize that solar panels and batteries, while beneficial, come with environmental and ethical drawbacks. My husband once laughed about this.
I present this general perspective when discussing the relationship between humanism and energy generation.
Jacobsen: High-profile disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima have shaped public perceptions of nuclear power. How do modern reactors address these concerns? Are they significantly safer, or are advancements more incremental?
Quiñones: Chernobyl is an example of a reactor design that has been abandoned. Specific engineering and operational failures caused its catastrophic accident. Modern reactors incorporate advanced safety features and are much safer than past generations. We can undoubtedly discuss those improvements in more detail.
But yes, Chernobyl was a failure. However, and luckily for everyone in Europe, however, the fallout wasn’t as catastrophic as people think. One of the significant issues was that children who were developing had a slight increase in thyroid cancer, but it is primarily a treatable cancer and usually not lethal.
That concern ended decades ago. Fukushima, on the other hand, was not a nuclear disaster. It was caused by a massive tsunami following a huge earthquake, and the plant shut down as designed.
No one died in Fukushima due to nuclear fallout. People died because of the tsunami and the mass evacuations. Not a single death in Fukushima can be attributed to radiation. Not one. There is a popular meme, and many have seen NOAA images with red lines seemingly emanating from Japan, stretching to the United States and even down to Chile. But those are depictions of waves, not radiation.
There was no increase in radiation above toxic levels. Radiation is a natural part of our world. Eating a banana, flying on a plane, or having an X-ray all expose you to radiation. Some cities are naturally more radioactive than others.
In the case of nuclear energy, leftover radiation is enclosed and kept safe. For example, coal used to generate electricity is radioactive, and the ashes produced are also radioactive. These ashes are piled up and exposed to air and water, releasing more radiation than any currently active nuclear plant. There are many myths and misconceptions about radiation and nuclear energy, and I aim to dispel them because we need to approach this topic with facts.
Jacobsen: Bill Gates and others have advocated for new reactor technologies, such as salt-based designs. What potential do these innovations hold for a safer and more sustainable nuclear future?
Quiñones: The company is called Natrium, and it uses a sodium salt reactor. The heat transfer system is made of sodium salts, hence the name “Natrium,” which comes from “Na,” the symbol for sodium.
Unlike Canadian reactors, for example, which are water-cooled, these new reactors do not require a water source to cool them like most older designs. Instead, they use an enclosed sodium salt energy transfer system. This stable sodium salt enables these new reactors to shut down passively.
If they reach a specific temperature, you can walk away. The system will shut down and cool safely, preventing hazardous runaway reactions. These are known as fourth-generation reactors.
They have a passive shutdown system. You don’t need to press multiple buttons, pull levers, or monitor various metrics. The system shuts itself down and is cooled by molten or solid salts.
(Mairym Ramos/SEIU)
Jacobsen: How has humanism evolved in Puerto Rico, particularly in the context of political shifts and increasing evangelical influence? Are there developments that stand out post-election?
Quiñones: Puerto Rico currently has a new political party based on Christianity. This is its second election with numerous candidates, many of whom are evangelical pastors or affiliated with evangelical circles. The largest political party here is concerned because it is conservative and has been losing members to this new evangelical party. I predicted early on that this major blue party would start becoming more religious to retain evangelical Christians and their votes, and that’s precisely what has happened.
The other major party has also increased its religious rhetoric because it was losing voters to this new party. This strategy has caused the loss of voters. However, this new party has shifted from being strictly evangelical to the new Latin American Yight. It reflects a form of Latin American libertarianism that originated in Argentina, exemplified by their new president, Javier Milei, who is a libertarian.
You also see this trend with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele. He’s known for building massive prisons and cracking down on gang violence. I’m sure you’ve heard about him. This Latin American libertarian movement is religiously influenced and far-right.
This strain of libertarianism is spreading through Latin America and has been promoted from Argentina. It’s a type of social experiment in the region, and Javier Milei is the most prominent figure right now. Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former president, supported these libertarian ideas, though their success has been mixed so far.
I hope they succeed, not because I support those ideas, but because I don’t want people to suffer. Argentina is in a dire economic situation, and people are suffering. I don’t care how they escape that suffering, even though I am not a libertarian. However, I hope there is some success because things are difficult now, and Argentina has struggled for about 20 years. This is one part of my humanistic beliefs that I grapple with because, while I may have certain political and economic ideas, at the end of the day, I want people not to struggle and to have food, shelter, and electricity.
Should I care how they achieve that? It’s a big question. Do my beliefs, shaped by my Puerto Rican culture, transfer to other cultures? I struggle with that notion, but I want people to thrive, and there may be more than one universal path to achieving that.
My idealism says yes, but can my ideals truly be translated into these countries? Is the Internet enough to help transform these societies? I constantly struggle with these questions. Is it ethical or even possible to export these values? I know what my humanist ethics dictate and am clear on that.
However, reality is complicated, and I have traveled extensively and seen this complexity firsthand. Can you transfer your beliefs to another country? Can you transfer humanism? I must stay committed to my path, but it takes work.
Jacobsen: At international forums like the World Congress, unique voices from different cultures shine. Reflecting on your experiences meeting humanists from around the globe, what makes these moments so impactful?
Quiñones: I’m sad to say that humanism has been somewhat hijacked by the political far left, which is unfortunate because humanism, rooted in ethics, should transcend politics. Compassion, for example, is not inherently a right or left value. The left often views compassion as one of its core values, while the right believes it is compassionate.
Nuclear energy is an example—it’s not a right-or-left issue. Ensuring everyone has food or a culturally acceptable roof over their heads is not inherently political. Humanism, with its basis in ethics, science, and free thought, is particularly good at shaping the best ideas, which can come from either side of the political spectrum.
Latin America is growing; it’s not the profoundly impoverished region it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago. I have been to Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela and have seen the progress firsthand.
Mormons can be found in Bolivia, Peru, and even Costa Rica, where I have seen them with their badges and bicycles. So, we face similar challenges. Also, if you weren’t aware, Costa Rica is the only country in Latin America constitutionally Catholic, though not co-governed with the Vatican.
This is a unique characteristic. However, intense clashes between religion and the state don’t occur in Costa Rica. Catholicism has had to soften its stance to retain followers. I have humanist friends in Peru who have said that they don’t mind the Catholic Church caring for the Inca treasures. The church has competent historians and museum managers who preserve these artifacts well, perhaps better than the government might.
So, the Catholic Church is not always viewed as the primary opponent, except when it comes to prohibitions on issues like abortion, which often continue regardless. Latin America’s relationship with the Catholic Church is complex. The Catholic Church has had to adapt because of the new wave of evangelicals, who often have a mandate to influence government policy in specific ways. This presents a new struggle for the 21st century, which we discuss frequently.
Jacobsen: You’ve spoken about a friend’s conversion to Catholicism. How did you react when they shared this with you? What insights did that experience offer into the dynamics of belief and identity?
Quiñones: He called me specifically to tell me. I was taken aback, and the first thing I said was odd—it’s something you’ve probably never heard before.
I had to say that to myself at that moment because what I wanted to do was scream and insult him. I wanted to shout, “How can you believe this nonsense? Sky Daddy? What is going on?” I wondered if it was because he had a Catholic girlfriend and wanted to get married. I couldn’t even ask if she pressured him into this decision. But as soon as I told my husband and another friend, their immediate reaction was, “That’s a girlfriend move.” I thought, “No, he’s not stupid. He’s intelligent.”
It couldn’t be just that. What was he thinking? And this person was high up in my organization, too. I told him again, “Please don’t let me say anything that hurts you while we’re talking about this.” Then I said, “I feel like I’ve lost you.”
I haven’t shared this with many people, but I told someone else, and they said, “This is like if your son came out as gay.” I responded, “No, if my son were gay, he couldn’t help it, and I would love him regardless. That’s not even a question.” Being gay isn’t a choice; it’s inherent. But believing in the Catholic God is a choice, as much as you can choose to believe or not.
However, how much of a choice would it be if you were groomed in childhood? It’s a complex matter. This person went to church and mass on his own as a child and was more devout than most Catholics I knew. It made me think about the impact of being raised with such beliefs, which is why one of my main priorities has been advocating against religious indoctrination in public schools.
I even won a legal case related to this issue. I sued the Secretary of Education here in court because a public school was preaching to students and telling them their non-believing mother was an atheist. We won the case and reached a mediation agreement with the help of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and my local lawyer. The agreement stated that you cannot preach to other people’s children in a public school setting nor allow others to do so. It’s an excellent document, though it has yet to be enforced due to the disruptions caused by COVID and other subsequent events. It was a chaotic time.
A ruling in Puerto Rico mandates the separation of church and state in public schools. Christopher Columbus discovered Puerto Rico on his second voyage on October 12, 1493. But there were already people living there. Puerto Rico was inhabited by two indigenous groups believed to have come from South America: the Arawaks and the Caribes. The Arawaks were from the Amazon region of southern Venezuela.
When I visited the Amazon in 1997, I was taken to meet the Arawak people in Venezuela. It was fascinating because I tried to explain where I was from and that I, too, had Arawak ancestry. These interactions can be transformative. Conversations can permanently shift how you think about things.
Jacobsen: Growing up in Puerto Rico, how did religion shape your educational experience? Was it inclusive of diverse beliefs, or did it lean toward a more traditional approach?
Quiñones: When I was growing up, nobody talked about religion. Everyone was Catholic, but it was rarely discussed. There was a church in my community, and many people attended. I even went a couple of times with friends because it was part of the routine, or just tradition, to go on Sundays. But outside of that, no one spoke about religion, dogma, or religious beliefs.
In my house, we talked about it even less. One Puerto Rican tradition is that when you visit older relatives, you ask for a blessing. You’d say, “Bendición,” and they would respond, “Dios te bendiga.” But even then, it wasn’t seen as religious; it was more of a cultural tradition. I know many atheists who still ask for blessings. It means saying, “Hello, you’re special to me.” But in my family, we didn’t even do that—not even that.
Have you heard of the Wedge Document when evangelicals tightened their influence?
Jacobsen: Yes, 100%.
Quiñones: The Wedge Document was essentially the blueprint for evangelical strategy. It was about aggressively asserting their presence in society and positioning people in power. That document came out in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and I saw the changes unfold in real time. I started hearing about evangelicals visiting communities and recruiting people.
Evangelical churches are very different from the Catholic Church because they are unstructured. Anyone can become a pastor, start a small church in their home, and collect tithes for livelihood. The Catholic Church doesn’t operate that way. It has a hierarchical structure and requires years of training to become a priest. Evangelical movements don’t have a centralized authority dictating doctrine or practices. This allows anyone to pick up a Bible, grab a microphone, stand on a makeshift pulpit, preach, and ask for donations.
Evangelicalism is almost liberating because it allows for varied beliefs. However, questioning it is difficult because one doesn’t want to hurt someone’s religious convictions. Evangelicals are different from Catholics in many significant ways.
After 1898, when Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory following a military victory, the U.S. Army divided the island among various major U.S. religious groups to assist with education, healthcare, and community services. The northwest was given to the Catholic Church, the southeast to the Presbyterians, San Juan to the Baptists, and so on. Congregationalists and Mormons were also assigned areas, particularly in the central part of the island. The names of hospitals and institutions reflect this history—Presbyterian Hospital, Baptist Hospital, Mennonite Hospital, etc.
This division of the island by religious groups is unusual and unheard of, but it’s how it was done. For example, the big missionary drives included efforts to treat children with parasites by distributing castor oil to kill internal parasites. Different religious groups managed these health initiatives according to their assigned regions.
Puerto Rico’s religious landscape was predominantly Catholic, but people were curious about other faiths. I don’t think the Lutherans were given any part of the island. The Lutheran Church in the U.S. is huge and significant. However, I don’t think any of the six or seven regions the island was divided into were given to the Lutheran Church. Was there a specific reason for that, or did it happen accidentally? I am still trying to figure out why.
It’s an interesting question. If everyone else was getting a share of the responsibility—getting a “piece of the pie,” so to speak—it’s odd that they weren’t included. That said, the various religious groups helped the U.S. military significantly, and there were benefits to it. If your child had intestinal parasites, you wouldn’t care who provided the medicine to treat them or who offered them a desk in a small countryside school where they could learn.
Why did it matter who was helping? Only a little preaching was involved; it was more about providing help. That is a net positive. Puerto Rico was poor, and these efforts made a significant difference.
We also faced severe hurricanes in the late 1890s and early 20th century. Massive hurricanes caused widespread devastation and increased poverty until the 1920s and 1930s. We didn’t experience another life-altering hurricane until María in 2017. For many years, we didn’t face hurricanes of that magnitude.
However, during that earlier period, the churches played a role in helping organize people and bringing them into the modern age. We can be thankful for that; why not? They were helping, and their actions mattered more than their preaching.
Jacobsen: You’re speaking more to a philosophy of humanism, focusing on what people do rather than what they say.
Quiñones: Exactly. And that was over 100 years ago. We can do better now, of course, but at the time, it wasn’t about preaching—it was about the people sent to help. Think of it as a version of the Peace Corps. These groups included nurses and doctors who were needed. It was, in many ways, like the Peace Corps. I hope this comparison helps make sense of it, even if it doesn’t resonate with everyone. Puerto Rico was poor and largely rural.
Jacobsen: Given Puerto Rico’s history of poverty, religious influence, and gradual development, how did humanism take root in such a context? What has been the movement’s greatest challenge and success?
Quiñones: Because we have the Internet.
Jacobsen: Good answer.
Quiñones: Modern humanism in Puerto Rico, in many ways, arose from online access. We even have a Muslim community.
Jacobsen: Really?
Quiñones: Yes, and they don’t particularly like me. We have debates sometimes. One Muslim invited me to have coffee with him to explain Islam. I thought, “Okay, let’s do this differently. I’ll meet you at your mosque, we’ll sit in front of everyone, and women should be allowed to be present while we talk.” His response was, “No, no, no. They cannot do that.” That made it difficult for me to agree to sit down with him for a coffee while he tried to preach to me.
Another big issue is giving women equal footing. I insist that everyone should be present, without exception.
Jacobsen: And how do they respond to that?
Quiñones: They often dismiss it. “Why would I talk to a mere woman like you? What’s the point? Do you want me to put you in your place?” they imply. I responded, “If you want to do that, send me a private message. We don’t need to have coffee.” But no, for me, it’s about humanism, not feminism.
Some people might say, “It’s because you’re a feminist,” but my response is, “No, I’m a humanist. Women are humans.” We all share the same flaws and strengths.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Eva.
In times of war, myths and reality collide, creating a murky space where truth often gets distorted. This murkiness is all too familiar for Wali, whose last name we are withholding to protect his safety and that of his family. He has dedicated himself to unraveling the myths that have grown around the Ukraine-Russia war. Wali identifies the belief that Russia operates with good intentions as the most dangerous myth—a notion he outright rejects as baseless. Equally absurd, he argues, is the Russian propaganda that paints Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a neo-Nazi.
Through our conversation, Wali shared his reflections on humility, collaboration, and the importance of truthful narratives in war. He firmly rejects the exaggerated stories of his accomplishments as a sniper, emphasizing instead the collective sacrifices of soldiers on the front lines. Wali delves into the psychological weight of combat, the moral complexities of retaliation, and his criticism of Russia’s reliance on bluffing as a military strategy. He speaks with conviction about the necessity of defeating Russian aggression to prevent future conflicts and highlights spirituality as a source of resilience for soldiers and civilians alike. Wali passionately advocates for financial and mental health support for veterans, concluding with a profound statement on the sacredness of freedom and the need to place humanity above geopolitical considerations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What, in your opinion, stands as the biggest myth surrounding the Ukraine-Russia war today? Additionally, on a broader scale, what would you identify as the most enduring myth about war in general?
Wali: The biggest myth is that the Russians have good faith in peace because many still believe it, especially in the West. There’s still naivety. I don’t get it. Even Trump is naive; I don’t think he hates Ukraine that much. Maybe he does, which is possible. But many people are still naive about the idea that the Russians genuinely want peace. And that’s dangerous thinking.
It’s all about a show of strength with Russia. It’s sad. I don’t enjoy saying this. Even I was naive at first. Maybe you remember the presentation. I thought, “Oh, it’s just propaganda. They’re not committing atrocities.” But then I was being bombed by Russians while saying this to Ukrainians.
So, the idea that Russia has good faith, that they want peace, and that the troublemakers are the West or the “Nazis” in Ukraine—this is the biggest myth of the war so far.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: One of the most absurd claims to emerge from this war is the portrayal of Zelensky as a neo-Nazi. The irony here is undeniable—labeling a Jewish leader, who also had a career as a comedian, with such a term. Do you believe this piece of propaganda has lost its effectiveness, or does it still retain some influence in certain areas?
Wali: Oh, yes, that’s absurd.
Jacobsen: You’ve been candid about the myths surrounding your role in the war. How do you personally reconcile the public’s perception of you as a heroic figure with your understanding of yourself as simply a soldier fulfilling his duties?
Wali: I would choose this one if your question were about the most ridiculous myth.
Jacobsen: That narrative seems to have faded somewhat. Fewer people now seem to believe the neo-Nazi myth. While it’s no longer the most prominent myth, it remains the most ridiculous. You mentioned during your presentation here in Toronto today—or tonight—that myths have also formed around you.
Wali: One of them is that I’m the best sniper in Canada, which is a myth. The usual myth is about me being the best sniper in the “world.”
Jacobsen: In military storytelling, there is a strong tendency to elevate individuals to near-mythical figures. In your case, the title of “best sniper” has generated a host of fantastical stories. How do you keep a sense of reality amid the swirl of exaggerated accounts?
Wali: Exactly. In my book, I talk about these things. You cannot be “the best sniper,” technically. If you take a group of people and assign them comparable missions—like shooting targets—it’s a measure of skill at that moment. It’s like athletes. Who’s the best skier right now? It’s not the guy who hasn’t skied in 10 years but used to be good. That’s me. I know how to train people to become good skiers or snipers, but I’m not technically the best now. It’s impossible because I need to train regularly. I only shoot a few times a year. Now, I’m coding technologies—that’s what I do.
In my book, I explain this difference. There’s a distinction between being a hero and a good soldier. A hero is also a good storyteller and a good writer. Many people I know have worse stories, so to speak, than me, but they’re either killed, too busy surviving, or not good storytellers. The difference between a hero and a good soldier is that the hero is a good storyteller and writer.
Jacobsen: It’s a mastery of narrative.
Wali: All the stories in the book and documentary are a glimpse at what many other soldiers are going through. It would help if you always had their stories.
Jacobsen: For someone in your position, where you act as a kind of spokesperson, how do you ensure you maintain humility while navigating the complexities of such a role?
Wali: Yes. You must be humble, remember that you’re just one piece of the puzzle, and don’t inflate yourself. That’s why I never wanted to take this propaganda too far because I saw the media trying to push the narrative: “Are you sure you killed, let’s say, Russians? Are you sure?” The typical question was about me shooting 40 Russians a day. They still insist and tell stories like, “You’ve killed so many guys.” They want to be the first to report it in the news, saying I killed dozens.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: That’s an insightful point. Even amid war, it’s critical to avoid propping up a self-mythology. It’s essential to remain accurate and to maintain the correct moral framework rather than overinflating narratives. In some cases, inflating stories can stoke the flames of war.
Wali: Yes. I believe in karma. It’s interesting—tonight, a lady gave me a cross. I’m touched by it because I’m a believer.
Jacobsen: Describe it for us.
Wali: It’s a Christian cross that a lady gave me tonight. I’m touched by it. I have a few similar artifacts from Ukraine. I still have things that I touched the corpses of dead soldiers with, and they’re still in my cabin, by the way. We are imperfect but must strive to be as close to perfection as possible.
One thing to strive for is humility. Let’s be honest; I fought for a few months. Come on. It’s impossible that I’m this “hero” they’re talking about. I’m just a guy—a good soldier. That’s it. But it’s still good. I’m not a bad soldier, either. I’m a good soldier, among others, who is a good storyteller.
Jacobsen: Certain reactions in war seem almost automatic. For instance, the person who runs away from danger compared to the one who charges toward it. The individual who charges toward it and survives often receives honors like the Purple Heart or something similar. Would you agree that such actions are not always fully conscious choices?
Wali: Some people say that war is part of human nature. But when you’re on the front line, seeing these terrible things and feeling the immense pressure, you want to pull back and run away. Then you realize—it’s not natural. It’s not something inherent in humans.
Jacobsen: Have you encountered people who seem to enjoy war?
Wali: Yes, sometimes you can enjoy parts of it. For example, you might enjoy an hour or a moment. Let’s say you push back the enemy—you might enjoy that part of the story. But the rest of it? You won’t enjoy it. Usually, if someone tells me they enjoyed, let’s say, a battle in Ukraine, or if they seem to enjoy it based on how they write, describe it, or speak about it, that’s a red flag for me. It signals they probably weren’t involved in serious combat. Those involved in the big battles in Ukraine are usually humble. They’re often broken. They don’t display confidence; instead, they’re shattered in a way.
Jacobsen: What’s the fundamental difference between those two states of being?
Wali: You mean the two states of intensity? If I pound you with artillery, tanks, and so on, and you lose many people around you—let’s say in a week—you probably won’t be bragging about it. If you do, you need to experience more to understand truly. Eventually, everyone can be broken. There’s no exception. I can be broken easily, too. There’s no way anyone can brag about being in a battle and claim it’s easy. No. It would help if you were scared. It’s about balancing being scared enough to protect yourself and not being too afraid that it paralyzes you. Recklessness is dangerous.
Jacobsen: No, what’s Mission 200?
Wali: I kept trying to tell people to be careful. Back then, it was all “Slava Ukraini! Let’s go forward!” But that led to what we called Mission 200. A “200” is code for KIA—killed in action—in the Soviet Union. A wounded in action is a “300.” In Ukraine, they called suicidal missions “200 missions” because they were essentially suicide missions. That’s what happened in 2022. People were still overly enthusiastic.
In June 2022, you were a young soldier full of energy and eagerness. However, that mindset often led to tragic outcomes. I love having a family. One of the worst things ever is going to war while having a family.
Jacobsen: Why is it more challenging with a family?
Wali: When you have a family, it’s tough. For me, it’s one of the hardest aspects of war.
Jacobsen: What are the emotions like before an operation? And what are the conversations?
Wali: Before an operation, the emotions are overwhelming. It’s one of the worst feelings in the world. You feel like running away and don’t care if you’ll be judged for it because it’s so hard—especially when you have a family.
My first deployment as a sniper in Canada was easy, mentally speaking, because I was single. I had no family and no responsibilities beyond myself. It was so much easier to deploy as a sniper in Kandahar.
Jacobsen: Did you enjoy it then?
Wali: Yes, to some extent. But I put “enjoy” in quotes. It’s not real joy.
Jacobsen: And Ukraine?
Wali: Ukraine was hard initially, especially mentally, because I had a family.
Jacobsen: How many children do you have, and how old are they?
Wali: I have two now. At the time of the full-scale invasion, I had one son. I love having a family, and I love my children. But knowing you’ll likely be wounded, killed, captured, or tortured—it’s one of the worst feelings ever.
I’m in awe when I see pictures or videos of Ukrainian soldiers returning to their families and their kids. They’re heroes. The pain they endure is unimaginable. If I got an email from the armed forces asking me to return tomorrow, I’d feel honored and happy. But at the same time, I wouldn’t feel happy at all because it would mean leaving my family behind again.
That possible sacrifice—the thought of leaving my family—is torture. There’s no word for it.
Jacobsen: There’s a principle there, though, of serving something higher than yourself—your family, for example.
Wali: Serving something higher than yourself is the core of it all.
Jacobsen: The majority of soldiers in most wars have historically been men. Even as discussions about gender equality progress, this fact largely holds true. Do you think that men who go to war benefit from having families or a sense of higher purpose, and could this serve as a potential deterrent to the outbreak of conflict?
Wali: Here’s the context. Between my two deployments in Ukraine, I spent some time in Ottawa. At one point, I came across something interesting.
I’ll explain. During that time, I was at the War Museum in Ottawa. It was about a sign explaining the recruitment of married men during WWI.
I found that fascinating because I was doing this as someone preparing for deployment, even though my wife didn’t want me to. I didn’t wait for her permission. Going to war is a significant decision, and it might be seen as a terrible thing to do to your family if you don’t consult them. But then again, children don’t have a full concept of war or its totality. However, the adult partner does, making it especially difficult for them. It’s a challenge for anyone not directly involved in the military.
Jacobsen: You’ve drawn fascinating comparisons between the myths of heroism in war and the complexities of figures like Nelson Mandela and Winston Churchill. How do you think their human flaws and imperfections inform our understanding of leadership and courage during moments of crisis?
Wali: For many, the anticipation is worse than the actual fight. When you are in the core of action, you’re so focused that you almost feel calm. I’ve said this to many soldiers. I’ve told them, “It would be a good day to die today.” In the moment, you feel strangely not stressed, even in the middle of it. I still remember that feeling. But beforehand, the anticipation is one of the worst feelings imaginable. Once in action, shockingly, it’s all right. It’s a service, after all.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: When conducting final rites or ceremonies for comrades who have fallen in combat, which words or symbols carry the greatest meaning for you? How do you personally summon the emotional strength required to honor their sacrifices?
Wali: I can relate to that deeply. I remember finding a typical Ukrainian icon card in the rubble there. I kept it inside my pocket, right over my heart.
When I came across corpses in Ukraine, I would take out the icon card and touch it during a small ritual. It became my way of honoring the dead. I believe in these things—they’re part of my spirituality.
Jacobsen: On the subject of myths, I find that when I read stories about you, they often feel like fiction rather than a living person’s reality.
Wali: The stories about me—both the good and the bad—are often so distorted that they lose all connection to reality. Social media plays a big role in this distortion. While there’s some truth online, it’s all about whether people act in good faith and verify information. Social media often prioritizes clicks and sensationalism.
On the other hand, while not perfect, traditional media tends to be more rigorous and nuanced. For example, social media might spread a rumor that “Russians killed him in Mariupol” or claim, “He shot a general,” like the one about a sniper killing a general in Irpin. These stories spiral out of control. It wasn’t me. But they said I shot a general.
Jacobsen: Psychologists describe it as the halo effect. One notable attribute—like physical appearance or an impressive skill—leads people to project other positive qualities onto the individual. For you, it starts with the title “best sniper,” which grows into stories about daring acts, killing generals, and even plans to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin. How do you personally view this tendency toward mythmaking?
Wali: The media amplified this. Some outlets asked, “Where is Wali?” and ran stories with varying degrees of nuance. Some headlines were outright sensational, while others tried to include some balance, but the foundation was still wrong. About 50% of traditional media outlets added some nuance but still leaned on the sensational side because it sells. Media is still a business; you need attention and clicks.
It’s tricky for media outlets because they want to tell the truth, but sometimes it is boring. During the Ukraine war, reporters would ask me, “Did you kill 40 Russians?” And when I’d say, “No, that’s not true,” some would push back, almost encouraging me to lie. They’d write the sensational story anyway and follow it up with another article calling me fake.
Jacobsen: Let’s clear the record, then. What are the main false statements or claims attributed to you?
Wali: The claim about being the best sniper in the world. I never, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, went around claiming to be “the best sniper.” Everyone was trying to pump up that narrative—journalists, the media. Still, I even called journalists back to tell them, “Please don’t write that I’m the best sniper. It’s insulting to other snipers. Come on!”
The only way you could justify saying something like that would be if I were in a trench with tanks coming at me; I took out two tanks, killed dozens of Russians, and then died heroically. Maybe then someone could call me one of the best. But as a professional soldier, I’ve always said, “Please don’t write that.” It’s unprofessional and sets the wrong tone for the military.
Jacobsen: It’s also worth emphasizing that these stories are not entirely truthful. Military operations are deeply collaborative efforts, and that’s something instilled in soldiers from the very start of basic training.
Wali: You need logisticians to plan missions, provide proper weapons and ammunition, and ensure accurate intel. It would help if you had all the machinery and unglamorous elements that support the sniper. The sniper is just the tip of the spear, the end product of a massive process.
When I think about my first deployment to Ukraine, I’d describe it as a “frustrating victory.” There were so many things I wanted to do, like coordinate artillery, but I couldn’t. The whole experience felt deeply frustrating.
We had no airstrikes. Well, we had some choppers here and there, but artillery—while possible—was complicated and hard to organize. I was seeing troops and thinking, “Give me a radio! If Afghanistan’s procedures were in place, I could destroy everything all day. It would be so easy. I’d send coordinates all day long behind tree lines. Forget the rifle; I would not need it.”
If I could have done that in Ukraine, it would have been a show. I knew exactly what to do, but I couldn’t because the procedures weren’t in place. It was incredibly frustrating. Many soldiers in Ukraine feel the same way, especially those in combat or near it. They’re not enthusiastic—they’re frustrated and angry.
Many men at the front complain about everything; they’re unhappy, even after victories. You’d talk to soldiers, even friends, and they were so negative about everything.
Jacobsen: It’s a bittersweet symphony of victory.
Wali: Everyone at the front felt the same—frustrated by everything. You can see the difference between someone stationed in Kyiv and someone involved in combat. The guy in combat is angry about everything, to the point where, during the bombing campaign in Kyiv in the fall of 2022, one of my friends laughed about it. He said, “Yes! You Kyiv people, now you’ll see that the war isn’t over. There’s still a war going on, and good for you—you’re getting bombed.”
Jacobsen: He was Ukrainian?
Wali: Yes, he was Ukrainian, and he was laughing about Kyiv civilians being bombed. That’s the reality of war. He was saying, “Good for you, now you see.” It reflects the trauma of war and the frustration soldiers feel. They want others to understand the reality because they feel the people in cities like Kyiv are disconnected from the frontlines.
Jacobsen: How are soldiers coping with the mental stress of war? We are talking about veterans who have PTSD, back from the war.
Wali: It’s easier than people think. Soldiers do need support—moral support—but at the end of the day, the thing they need most is money. Many of them are broke and need financial help to live. Eventually, Ukraine will need to send money to veterans, especially wounded ones, or create programs to support them. There could even be a PTSD crisis in Ukraine. I predict a major crisis eventually: fights, frustration, and domestic violence, especially as PTSD worsens.
Another issue I see coming up relates to drones. Right now, you see all these videos of drones dropping bombs on Russians, often set to music. They use these videos for propaganda. But over time, this could escalate into something more troubling.
The images—those drone videos—on paper, that’s a war crime. So maybe, let’s say there’s peace in six months. Both sides might say, “We must judge the war criminals.” Then you’ll have journalists or other people pointing out war crimes on the Ukrainian side, which is true. They might start looking at drone operators making fun of Russians being killed by drones and say, “You drone operators are going to be judged as war criminals.”
Imagine that. It’s not going to be good. These people who were protecting their country could be judged. I understand the reasoning somewhat, but we also need to show empathy. It’s going to be a tricky situation. Where do we draw the line between prosecuting war criminals on the Ukrainian side and granting amnesty? Where’s the threshold of acceptance? Is posting a video mocking a Russian being killed by a drone going too far?
Some people will push for extreme measures, saying, “We should prosecute anyone who committed even the tiniest war crime on paper.” I predict this will lead to trouble. That’s why I’ll continue to argue for supporting the soldiers financially. They need resources—money to meet basic needs.
Especially the broken ones, the ones who can’t work or contribute because they’re physically or mentally too damaged.
If we say, “Thank you for your service, but here’s no money, no support, and good luck,” it will be a disaster. These soldiers need meaningful support. They want money to survive.
Jacobsen: North America and Western Europe have significantly declined religious belief and spirituality in recent decades. Would you characterize the people of Ukraine and Russia as ordinary citizens who are generally spiritual or religious?
Wali: First, we need to define spirituality. Many people still think spirituality is the same as religion, but they’re two different things. Sometimes, people might say they’re not spiritual, but what they mean is that they don’t agree with religion, which is a valid perspective. Religions are organizations, and they sometimes do bad things.
Being spiritual is about finding meaning in life and improving yourself. The first step for any human is to be a better person—for yourself. What’s even more admirable is helping others. Going beyond just being a good person for yourself to actively helping others is one of the most challenging but honorable things to do.
Jacobsen: Would you describe Russians and Ukrainians as spiritual?
Wali: Ukrainians are comparable to many other people. They are not particularly spiritual. Still, they may have become more spiritual now because of the pain they’ve endured. Pain often leads to deeper reflection—asking why it happened and how to survive it. Resilience usually comes from spirituality.
Resilience is one of my key traits. I can be broken, but I don’t stay broken for long. I might feel weak but recover quickly and become mentally strong again. One reason for my resilience is my spirituality. When you have meaning behind what you do, it helps you make sense of many things.
It’s not just about protecting your health; it’s the truth—there’s real meaning in it. What Russia is doing, with its crimes and everything, isn’t just a political phenomenon. It isn’t good, spiritually speaking.
Jacobsen: So, everything comes back to being spiritual at some point?
Wali: Yes, exactly. Long answer, but yes.
Jacobsen: I’m trying to explore this idea: those who cause harm often believe they will face some divine reckoning. That belief seems tied more closely to institutional religion. What you’re describing, though, sounds more immediate—a personal and existential grappling with pain. Would you say this national moment of suffering is compelling people to confront deeper, more fundamental questions about their lives?
Wali: Yes. If you look at the Bible, the Jewish people exemplify resilience through spirituality. They were enslaved and beaten under Pharaoh. They didn’t have the means to fight against Pharaoh with an army, so they turned to spirituality—it became the only light in a dark sky. When hope is the only thing you have left, you become spiritual.
In parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia, people are becoming deeply spiritual out of necessity. They hold onto hope and think about relief and freedom. It’s a way to survive when there’s no other option.
Jacobsen: What would characterize two conditions: one for an unstable peace and one for a stable peace in this war?
Wali: In life, in general, on one side, there are ideas; on the other side, there is reality, and in between, there is what we call politics. Ideally, Ukraine regains all its territories, Putin is removed, and Russia is dismantled. But the reality is different. The person signing a peace agreement might face criticism because politics often requires compromise.
Ideally, a realistic peace means Ukraine reclaims Crimea and all territories within its borders. That’s the bottom line, paired with a clear balance of power and guarantees of protection from both sides. We cannot give away Ukrainian territories to Russia—it’s morally wrong and strategically disastrous in the long term.
If we give in and say, “Okay, you’ve pushed long enough; take the land,” we set a precedent. It’s like giving Russia—and anyone else—the recipe for winning wars through persistence. If we let them keep territory after a few years of resistance, others will notice and think, “Interesting. That’s how you get what you want.” Then we’ll see more wars. Allowing this to happen would create a cycle of conflict.
Russia needs to be punished; they need to lose what they’ve gained if they commit such crimes as they’ve done in this war. If we don’t punish this, there will be more wars. We’ll send a signal that it’s acceptable to invade other countries, start wars, and negotiate deals afterward to gain territories or resources.
We must take back everything—right now—and we can achieve it. Europe’s economy is about eight times larger than Russia’s. It’s not that we can’t do it; it’s a matter of whether we want to.
You were speaking about spirituality—or the lack thereof—in the West. This lack of support, this shyness from Western nations like Europe, Canada, and the United States, shows how weak we are spiritually. It’s unacceptable. What’s happening should not be tolerated. And it’s not even hard to help. Look at us—we’re sitting in a safe coffee shop. All we need to do is send some money and weapons. That’s it. It’s not a big sacrifice.
This is nothing compared to what’s at stake. We need to take back everything in Ukraine. That’s the bottom line—the absolute minimum.
If we do this and keep the sanctions in place, it will eventually lead to trouble within Russia’s regime. The data shows that Putin’s popularity rose when he gained territories like Crimea. But his popularity dropped when financial crises hit. When people suffer economically, they begin to question their government.
Right now, Russia’s economy is in bad shape. The ruble is unstable, and their financial situation is deteriorating. If we take back all the territories and defeat Russia, Putin won’t be able to say, “It was hard, but we did it. Now we have Crimea and Donbas.” If he loses, no one will view it as a victory.
The regime could crumble without any gains to show for it, combined with economic struggles. It’s sad to say, but simply replacing Putin will not fix things because this problem is cultural. Russians are heavily brainwashed. Replacing Putin with another leader might mean the same issues persist.
Partitioning Russia is needed. The country needs to crumble, disappear, and become part of history. In 20 or 50 years, I’d love for people to look at history books and ask, “What was this massive country called Russia?” It should be something we only remember as part of the past.
One day, people will say, “That country was called Russia. Why does it no longer exist? Why are there only tiny pieces of it left?” And the answer will be, “They caused so much trouble that, eventually, enough was enough. The world got tired of it, and we had to act. That’s why it was split up.”
It would be painful to do, but it’s necessary. Russia has been a constant troublemaker. In a sense, we’re still fighting the Second World War. What we’re dealing with now is an extension of that conflict—remnants of it. Trump’s pullback from U.S. commitments to protect Europe signaled the end of the post-World War II paradigm of the U.S. as Europe’s protector. What we’re seeing now is historic. It’s about finishing the job because Russia remains part of the problem.
It would help if you remembered that in Poland, at the start of the war, they weren’t the “good guys” either. Poland took part of Czechoslovakia when Hitler took it. However, defeating Germany was then a priority because it was comparable to the Soviet Union but worse. Germany under the Nazis was bad, but Italy under Mussolini and the Soviet Union under Stalin weren’t much better. It’s all relative. That said, the work isn’t finished. Russia should become part of history.
Eventually, a country can’t keep doing terrible things to others and expect to remain accepted as part of the international community. A nation must take responsibility for its actions. If it keeps causing harm, eventually, the world will retaliate and crush it. Look at Germany under the Nazis—it was destroyed because of its actions. That’s why I don’t have much empathy for Russia. At some point, they must stop making trouble and take responsibility.
Nobody’s perfect. Even Poland and Germany took parts of Czechoslovakia before the war. No country is blameless, but if you persist in being destructive, you can’t expect to survive as a nation. It’s sad, but Russia needs to be partitioned and consigned to history. Future generations will look at maps and ask, “What was this big country?” And the answer will be, “It was a bad country that caused so much trouble that we had to dismantle it.”
Jacobsen: But what about the nuclear threat from Russia? It would be best if you saw it as credible. Why?
Wali: Russia is all about showing off—a show of force. Let me tell you a story. At one point, when we were on the frontlines, Russian artillery was bombarding us, and Ukrainian artillery started firing back. It became a sort of macho display. The Russians would respond, “We’re still here, and we have more guns.” It’s like a competition to see who can look stronger, louder, or more powerful.
If Ukrainians fire three volleys, the Russians will escalate and try to prove superior. It’s all about appearances, not actual sophisticated tactics.
So, let’s say Ukrainians fire 20 rounds. You can almost feel the emotions of the Russians saying, “We’re going to send 50.” You see the destruction from their artillery—it’s all about showing force with no subtlety. The Russians are pretty predictable in this way. Their entire strategy is about projecting strength.
It’s about bluffing, showing massive numbers, resources, tanks, infantry, and artillery to create the illusion of overwhelming power. But now, people are starting to see the truth. Russia is no longer considered the “second army in the world.” It was partly bluff all along.
They’re still a big bluffer with good cards—lots of cards—but not the fancy, modern, “unstoppable” military they claimed to be. When it comes to nuclear weapons, many are starting to question whether they’re bluffing there, too. Maybe they don’t have the capabilities they claim. We’ve taken for granted that deploying nuclear weapons is easy, but it’s not. It requires advanced engineering and technology—things that are difficult to maintain in a backward or deteriorating state.
Some people are now questioning whether Russia even has fully functioning nuclear weapons. Maybe they do, perhaps they don’t. They certainly have something, but whether they will cross and use that line is uncertain. If we see a nuclear weapon tested, that would be a serious red flag. That’s when we’ll know they might be serious about it.
Jacobsen: So, are you saying many people now think the nuclear threat might be exaggerated?
Wali: Yes. There’s a growing sense that the “grenade” Putin claims to be holding might not be what we think it is. It could be partly fake. Of course, even a fake or partially functioning nuclear capability could still do immense damage. The line to watch for is whether Russia conducts a test. That’s the likely next step—a test in a remote area, like Siberia, with much noise and propaganda. They’ll publish images of a mushroom cloud and say, “See? We can destroy you.” That would cause panic, collapse stock markets, and create chaos without launching an attack.
But I don’t think they’ll use a nuclear weapon outright—not immediately. It’s more likely that they’ll do a test first to instill fear. If they did decide to use a small tactical nuclear weapon—say, a 20-kiloton bomb like Hiroshima’s—what would we do? That’s the big question.
Jacobsen: If they used a small nuclear weapon, what do you think the response would be?
Wali: That’s the nightmare scenario. What do you do with a “bad guy with a grenade,” threatening to blow everyone up if he doesn’t get his way? If you give him what he wants, he’ll go somewhere else and do it again. But if you call his bluff and he’s not bluffing, the consequences are catastrophic.
The bigger problem is the uncertainty. If tomorrow Russia dropped a tactical nuclear bomb—let’s say on a non-strategic location—it would send shockwaves around the world. Even a “small” nuclear weapon like that would cause immense devastation. The real challenge is responding to such a provocation without escalating things further.
So, let’s say they do it. They use a nuclear weapon and claim it. What do we do next? Do we nuke Russia? Then they nuke the rest of the world? How do you manage a crisis like that?
It’s uncharted territory. We don’t know. That’s one reason we need to defeat Russia on the battlefield. If humiliation and sanctions are piled on top, their capacity for further aggression might be destroyed.
This could escalate into a larger conflict. The Russian Federation might crumble, and countries like Armenia, Georgia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, and others might seize the opportunity to assert independence or break away from Russia’s sphere of influence. This could lead to a World War, World War III. Even China could get involved. They might step in and say, “We’ll protect the eastern part of Russia for you,” but really, they’d be taking it for themselves.
China is pragmatic and all about business. I’ve spoken to people who know more about the Chinese perspective than I do. They’ve explained that even during tense situations—like when they held Canadian hostages—they were quick to say, “Let’s talk again. Let’s do business.” That’s the good thing about dealing with China—they’re talkable and rational.
Russia, on the other hand, is emotional and irrational. It’s driven by this epic narrative of regaining the “great Russia.” It’s unpredictable and dangerous. Rationality means accepting peace, regrouping, reforming its army, and stirring up trouble again in five or ten years. That’s what the Chinese might do—they play the long game. But Russia doesn’t think that way. It sees this as an existential battle between good and evil.
Jacobsen: What do you think about President Biden approving long-range missiles for Ukraine?
Wali: It’s a good move. We need to do it. If you’re at war, you must respond to war with war. If someone bombs you, you bomb back. That’s basic.
I’ve been thinking about this lately. Maybe there should be agreements in the future—something enshrined in international conventions, like the Geneva Conventions. If you start a war, you must accept that whatever you do to your enemy will be legal for them to do back to you.
For instance, you can’t threaten nuclear war and expect immunity from retaliation. If you send ballistic missiles to your enemy’s cities, you can’t claim it’s unfair when they send missiles to your cities. It should be acceptable for Ukraine—or any country—to fight back in kind.
We talk much about Russia’s “red lines,” but what about ours? We should have red lines too. One of them should be: if you bomb cities, expect to be bombed back. It’s that simple. If you don’t want your cities hit, don’t bomb other people’s cities. That’s a fundamental rule we should enforce.
Yes, but the red lines are also crucial for our allies—for NATO. That’s the key. Before we talk about red lines, we’re entering uncharted territory. It isn’t easy, but Ukraine wants to be free. If we held a referendum tomorrow in Ukraine asking, “Do you want to be on the Russian side?” I don’t think many people would say yes.
Ukraine has the right to be free, safe, and peaceful. That’s fundamental. Spirituality ties into this, too. Freedom is sacred, and recognizing its sacredness is part of being spiritual. For Ukraine, freedom is the red line. We should have a free Ukraine, period. There should be no negotiation on that.
Jacobsen: Final question: What are your favorite quotes you’ve heard from people during the war?
Wali: Maybe I can share one. It’s a bit funny because, at first, I didn’t understand what it meant. I remember knowing nothing about the country when I entered Ukraine; I still knew a lot but missed many things in the culture. I quickly realized they had amazing hot dogs, and I thought, “Okay, these are nice people.” I liked them. I wanted to help them because I felt they were the good guys.
People kept saying, Slava Ukraini! I was like, “What does that mean?” And they told me to respond with Heroyam Slava. But at the time, I didn’t know. It’s funny because, even though I was in Ukraine and all over the media as this supposed hero of the war, I didn’t initially know what Slava Ukraini! meant. I understood only a few days later, and looking back, it’s wild to think about. It shows how busy and disconnected I was at the moment.
Jacobsen: What does Ukraine mean to you?
Wali: In some ways, I don’t care about Ukraine as a place—I care about the people. That’s what matters to me. It’s the same reason I’ve been involved in other wars—Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Iraq, fighting against the Islamic State. It’s about helping the people, not the geographical region or political territory. It’s always been about the humans, not the country.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.
Seyfi Tomar is Vice President of Ebs Global, a Canadian construction firm focused on creating durable and sustainable structures, from hospitals and schools to mid-rise buildings, focusing on cost efficiency and environmental responsibility. Seyfi passionately advocates for prefabricated steel systems, customizing designs to reflect local cultures while delivering eco-friendly solutions.
As a key sponsor of Rebuild Ukraine initiatives, Seyfi spearheads efforts to restore infrastructure in war-torn regions, blending Canadian expertise with international collaboration. His approach combines advanced technologies like recycled galvanized steel to address housing shortages and infrastructure demands.
Despite challenges such as securing funding from organizations like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Export Development Canada (EDC), Seyfi remains committed to scaling sustainable solutions, prioritizing speed, affordability, and cultural integrity. Early projects include rebuilding Bakhmut, emphasizing innovation and resilience in the face of immense challenges.
In this interview, we explore Seyfi’s vision for Ukraine’s reconstruction following the Toronto Rebuilding Ukraine conference, exploring his approach to global recovery and sustainable innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Seyfi, the Rebuilding Ukraine conference in Toronto highlighted immense challenges and opportunities. What is the most critical insight about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine that you want people to understand?
Seyfi Tomar: We have been involved since the beginning of the war. We have always wanted to help because we are a company that consistently extends a helping hand to refugees and displaced people. At the same time, we aim to facilitate using our new technology to create accommodation for those in need.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: Canada is geographically distant from Ukraine. How is the country overcoming logistical hurdles to play a significant role in reconstruction?
Tomar: Due to bureaucratic complexities, the Canadian government needs to make clear how it plans to fund these efforts. However, they are collaborating with us to establish facilities in Ukraine and register our companies to begin construction. Simultaneously, I have engaged with Export Development Canada and other capital firms that are heavily involved in financing reconstruction projects.
The process remains to be determined. We need to continue working on it and secure funding from institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Export Development Canada, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
I have already communicated with these entities. As a Canadian company, we can also set up a manufacturing plant in Ukraine to produce prefabricated light-gauge steel panels. With over 50 years of experience in construction, during which we have built hospitals and other public buildings urgently needed in Ukraine, we are well-prepared to contribute to this effort.
We recently established a Construction Innovation Solutions Lab, which applied for funding for some projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The same team secured some funds from MITACS in the past. This lab enables us to adapt and implement advanced technologies developed in different countries in Canada. We have already integrated some of these innovations, and any future advancements will also be applied to reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, there is an urgent need for non-combustible, affordable, and sustainable buildings, including schools and hospitals. Our three companies offer a comprehensive package of solutions tailored to these needs.
Jacobsen: Your firm has introduced groundbreaking construction techniques. Could you detail these innovations and their significance for rebuilding Ukraine?
Tomar: We are currently working on engineering building systems. We use galvanized steel, which is zero-waste, sustainable, and reusable. Unlike traditional methods, where thousands of trees are cut down to build houses, our approach uses recycled galvanized steel to construct houses with zero waste. This method is exactly what Ukraine needs right now. It is also essential that we build durable houses and buildings.
Jacobsen: Bakhmut has suffered devastating destruction. Could you describe your plans to reconstruct this city and the unique challenges involved?
Tomar: I have always followed Bakhmut’s story. I have kept in touch with developments, watched a documentary, and learned its history. I met with the mayor and a few other Bakhmut individuals in Poland.
They have put together a project to build homes for 3,500 people in a manner that replicates Bakhmut’s original architecture. We agreed in principle to undertake the project. However, I am still determining the exact location, though I remember it is in western Ukraine.
We will review the details when we visit in person next week, as the architectural drawings still need to be finalized. I have spoken to someone from Export Development Canada and will coordinate with the underwriters.
The early stage of the project involves securing funding to create the architectural plans and prepare for construction. Overall, the project is still in its initial stages, so there is little to say. However, our intention is clear: we aim to start building as soon as possible. Ideally, we will be on-site before Christmas and begin construction right after the new year. How quickly we can proceed will depend on the funding we secure from various sources.
(Vadim Ghirda/AP Photo)
Jacobsen: Funding is often a bottleneck for large-scale projects. How are you securing financing, and how do you ensure accurate cost estimation for these initiatives?
Tomar: The cost estimations are already in place. The budget has been determined collaboratively by the mayor’s office of Bakhmut, which will be built in Hoshcha.
We have a ballpark figure for the required amount. Still, we must contact investors, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, and Export Development Canada, to determine their contributions.
This process is time-consuming, but we are actively working on it. We have the facilities, workforce, skilled personnel, and knowledge to build. The only piece that needs to be added is funding, which we are addressing.
That is why we are going to Ukraine in person—to meet with key individuals and discuss further. I am already communicating with the three primary entities funding many reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Van Horne Construction, Engineered Building Systems, and the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab are key players in your efforts. How do these entities collaborate to drive economic and infrastructure growth in Ukraine?
Tomar: FIABCI-Canada, where I am the Secretary-General, allows me to network globally from 70 different countries, and then I explore innovative technologies and solutions worldwide to adopt under the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab. I identify these innovations in various countries and bring them to Ebs Global.
At Ebs Global, we assess feasibility and determine how to adapt these technologies to the Canadian climate and the specific construction needs in Ukraine. Finally, we implement and build these projects under Van Horne Construction.
These three entities work synergistically: one focuses on research, another on engineering, and Van Hoorde takes charge of the building process.
Jacobsen: Energy infrastructure is a crucial component of modernization. How are you integrating advanced energy solutions into your reconstruction projects?
Tomar: We have yet to gain experience in that area.
Jacobsen: During the Toronto conference, did you meet potential partners who could play a pivotal role in advancing these efforts?
Tomar: I spoke with AECON, Canada’s largest civil construction company. They are pursuing a dam project and several other initiatives in Ukraine. We have reached a preliminary agreement to collaborate once they are on-site.
This is still in the early stages, but once we are there, we will meet again to explore how we can contribute to each other’s projects. We aim to collaborate with AECON and all companies entering Ukraine to provide our services.
Jacobsen: Were there any specific panels or speeches during the conference that resonated with your work and inspired new directions?
Tomar: Yes, many people I met there came from Ukraine and others from Canada, including representatives of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, such as President Zenon and Vice President Yuri, and the consular staff. They collaborate closely, and we share a mutual belief in integrity and teamwork.
We plan to work together. Leah from Export Development Canada has also been instrumental in this. She helps us by connecting us with underwriters. The conference in Toronto was very fruitful.
We attended a similar gathering in Warsaw, Poland, a couple of weeks ago with many of the same individuals. Tomorrow, I will meet with Stephen Lecce, the Minister of Energy for Ontario, whom I previously met in Poland and Toronto.
I am working to accelerate our efforts by leveraging our networks at different levels of government to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine. However, everything is still in the early stages.
We are working hard. We have plans, programs, knowledge, and experience. Now, we must assemble all the necessary elements to move forward.
Jacobsen: Workforce availability is critical for large-scale projects. How are you ensuring you have enough skilled labor, especially considering the local challenges?
Tomar: The priority is to employ veterans, the relatives of veterans from Ukraine, and other local people. If a labour shortage persists after that and we have exhausted local options, we can hire workers from Turkey. This is feasible because we are ending all our operations in Turkey and relocating our companies to Ukraine.
Jacobsen: In your view, what is the most significant obstacle to realizing these ambitious reconstruction plans?
Tomar: The only significant challenge for a company at our level, with our knowledge and experience, is securing funding. Our knowledge, tools, experience, workforce, and skilled workers are already in place. We utilize innovative technology and build creatively. Everything is ready to go. Funding is the only hurdle—there are no other significant obstacles.
Once we establish our companies in Ukraine before Christmas, we will become a valuable asset to other developers and builders arriving from countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Italy.
We can provide services and sub-trades to those companies because, when they come, they may face bigger challenges than we do. Our extensive experience in various war zones in Turkey and 53 years of experience in Canada make us more equipped than any other company to build in Ukraine.
Under Ebs Global, we can offer exceptional services to builders and developers from other European countries. This is why we are committed to being present in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, if the war were to end tomorrow and funding became available, how quickly could construction begin, and what would a realistic timeline for rebuilding Bakhmut look like?
Tomar: Whether the war stops or continues, it does not matter; we want to rebuild Ukraine now. We do not intend to wait until the war ends—we are ready to start building immediately. We can construct faster, more customizable, and more durable houses than other developers. We are not waiting for the war to end; we are prepared to begin at any time.
Housing, schools, and hospitals are urgent needs, and we want to address them now. Waiting is not an option.
Jacobsen: Construction technology has advanced significantly, including robotics and automation that can operate 24/7. How do you see these innovations impacting your projects in Ukraine?
Tomar: Yes, that is precisely what we have adopted. Our fully computerized system allows us to produce in three shifts, 24/7.
We manufacture walls, slabs, and trusses with zero waste and precision, ensuring every element is perfectly sized and segmented for the project. When feasible, we also integrate VR and artificial intelligence technologies. Many innovative software solutions are available, but we avoid using them if a technology is not adaptable to a specific area or project.
Sometimes, we need to combine traditional methods with new, innovative approaches. That’s why we can only apply a one-size-fits-all approach to some projects. It depends on each project’s specific requirements.
We know and integrated many of the technologies you describe. We are aware of these advancements, including proptech and contech systems. I have worked with companies across the globe, from Indonesia to Nigeria, Germany to Spain, and many other countries. Through my networking platform, the United Nations-affiliated FIABCI Canada, I collaborate with people eager to assist Ukraine worldwide. My role is to facilitate these efforts.
Jacobsen: Eastern Europe has a distinct architectural identity. How are you incorporating the aesthetics of Ukrainian architecture into your designs while meeting modern needs?
Tomar: Ebs Global focuses on providing the structural skeleton of buildings. We adapt to the architectural preferences and climate-specific requirements of every country, province, or state we work in.
For instance, Bakhmut’s architectural style differs from what we see in Toronto or Vancouver. When we work in Ukraine, we will adopt the local architectural style that suits their needs and culture.
The main component of any construction project is the structure, which we provide at a more affordable price. However, we do not impose North American architectural styles on Ukraine or Eastern Europe.
We build the structure and then integrate the local tastes, cultural preferences, and architectural styles to ensure the final product aligns with their unique identity.
Jacobsen: Large-scale global projects often face regulatory and logistical barriers. What country-specific challenges—such as economic conditions, regulations, or supply chain issues—have you encountered?
Tomar: We foresee no significant hurdles in this regard. Regarding Ukraine, we have a strong network of suppliers. We source materials like galvanized steel and other products from countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, and Spain.
Additionally, we are adopting new technology in Germany to produce bricks and convert them into panels. With this extensive network, we do not anticipate issues with supply or collaboration.
Jacobsen: Durability is essential for the longevity of infrastructure. How vital are corrosion-resistant coatings and fire-resistant materials in achieving sustainable, long-lasting buildings?
Tomar: Our light-gauge steel products have longer lifespans than traditional materials. In North America, for example, houses typically last 50 to 70 years. With our materials, the lifespan extends up to 100 years.
Moreover, our products resist bugs and termites and do not rust. So, what more could you want? This approach represents a better way to build durable and sustainable structures.
Leon Langdon joined Humanists International as an Advocacy Officer in September 2023. He brings a wealth of experience from his prior roles at the UN Security Council and in the NGO and education sectors. At Humanists International, he focuses on advancing the organization’s work at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and supporting member organizations in navigating UN human rights mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review. Langdon holds a law degree from University College Dublin and a master’s in international relations from New York University.
In this interview, Langdon delves into pressing developments at the UNHRC, including the contentious non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 and the adoption of a resolution targeting the desecration of religious books. He highlights Humanists International’s advocacy to uphold freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression while combating blasphemy laws that disproportionately target minorities and undermine human rights. Langdon underscores the importance of frameworks like the Rabat Plan of Action in addressing hate speech without eroding free expression.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Leon. As an Advocacy Officer at Humanists International, you’re at the forefront of critical global issues. Let’s start with a broad question. How would you characterize recent UN Human Rights Council developments regarding efforts to combat religious hatred?
Langdon: The current trends are troubling. For context, over the years, there has been a consensus between the most significant actors in this arena: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the European Union (EU), which often acts on behalf of the West, including the United States.
These organizations have historically agreed on how best to balance the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) with efforts to combat hatred based on religion or belief.
This consensus was reflected in two parallel resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council: the EU-led resolution on FoRB and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18 on combating religious hatred. Both resolutions have been renewed annually since 2011, up until this year.
The trends you’re referring to include two key developments: the introduction of a resolution addressing the desecration of religious books and symbols in 2023, its attempted renewal in 2024, and the non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 in 2024. These actions are deeply concerning as they undermine what was a hard-fought consensus on countering hatred based on religion or belief. Achieving this consensus required many years of negotiation, substantial compromise, and significant effort among the world’s major actors.
Seeing this progress eroded is undoubtedly worrying for us at Humanists International.
Pictured: Leon Langdon. (LinkedIn)
Jacobsen: Humanists International has been vocal about its concerns regarding resolving the desecration of sacred books and religious symbols. Could you elaborate on the organization’s key apprehensions?
Langdon: In 2023, we raised several issues regarding this resolution. We voiced our concerns during the emergency debate called at the UN and in a joint letter with numerous other NGOs.
First, we highlighted that prohibiting the defamation of religion and protecting religious ideas, institutions, and symbols not only contravenes the guarantees of freedom of opinion and expression but is also prone to abuse—most often targeting religious minorities. Ironically, these minorities are often the very groups the resolution claims to protect.
Second, we stressed the long-established distinction between criticism of religion or belief and attacks on individuals because they adhered to a particular religion or belief. This difference is crucial to maintain.
Third, we noted that equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to hatred is problematic. Such acts do not always constitute incitement, and this oversimplification disregards the need for a case-by-case approach. Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process, including the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, provide a robust framework for determining whether an act constitutes incitement.
Ignoring this framework undermines years of work and legal clarity.
Jacobsen: Despite strong opposition, the resolution passed. In your view, why did it gain sufficient support?
Langdon: In my opinion, two factors played a role. The first is the broader geopolitical environment. This resolution was introduced in response to several incidents in Europe involving the burning of the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam.
There was anger and shame about those incidents in certain states. The second factor was the assertion by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that this would be a one-time resolution. It was brought in during an emergency debate. At the time, there was no discussion that this resolution would be renewed or that its renewal would lead to the subsequent non-renewal of Resolution 16/18. Some states, especially given the political context at the time, could sympathize with the sentiment. This is evident in the failure to renew the resolution a second time, despite the OIC’s attempts.
Jacobsen: Humanists International has actively engaged in negotiations on religious tolerance. What has been the organization’s role in shaping these discussions?
Langdon: Broadly speaking, we are one of the UN’s only explicitly non-religious or humanist organizations, and that is a vital voice we bring to the table. Within that role, we work to champion the balance between freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression.
Additionally, we highlight how laws, such as blasphemy laws at the national level, can be used to undermine the rights of non-religious individuals and religious minorities.
Jacobsen: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) often leads these resolutions. How does its approach differ from broader human rights principles?
Langdon: The OIC’s approach elevates religion, including religious books and symbols, to a pedestal, whereas international human rights law places the human being at the center. Religious books and symbols do not enjoy protections under international human rights law; people do.
Moreover, these laws are often used to undermine human rights. Their subjective nature makes them prone to weaponization. This can take two primary forms.
Firstly, these laws are used to attack religious minorities who are expressing their freedom of religion or belief. In such cases, the majority in power often claims that the minority’s actions amount to blasphemy. This undermines their freedom of expression and violates their right to freedom of religion or belief.
Secondly, these laws are weaponized for political purposes. Accusations of blasphemy provide a convenient means for individuals to attack or undermine political opponents. Once an accusation is made, the state apparatus is often deployed against the accused, resulting in significant abuse of power.
Jacobsen: The annual resolution on combating religious hatred was withdrawn this year. What were the reasons behind this decision, and what does it signify?
Langdon: According to the OIC, Resolution 16/18 was withdrawn because Western countries had not done enough to combat hatred based on religion or belief. As I mentioned, this is a huge shame and part of the troubling trends we’ve discussed. Ultimately, it undermines the hard-fought consensus that had taken many years to achieve and had been in place for over a decade.
Jacobsen: Lobbying is a cornerstone of Humanists International’s advocacy. How have these efforts influenced the outcome of the renewed resolution?
Langdon: To my knowledge, we were the only NGO to speak during the informal consultations, the term used at the UN for negotiating resolutions.
This makes our advocacy efforts particularly significant in shaping the discussion surrounding the renewal of this resolution.
As we have yet to receive a web link from the informal consultation organizers, we had to go to Geneva and speak in the room. During the session, we presented our case to the states, explaining why the resolution should not be renewed and why the OIC should return to Resolution 16/18.
We also circulated a briefing document to over 100 states and received numerous supportive responses.
Building on this, we met with state representatives in Geneva, representing countries across several continents. We presented our position to them and addressed their questions and concerns. Advocacy and lobbying are difficult to quantify regarding outcomes, so it is challenging to accurately attribute the resolution’s withdrawal to our efforts.
However, we mobilized a substantial lobbying effort at short notice, and ultimately, the tabled resolution was indeed withdrawn. Regardless of directly attributing the outcome to our advocacy, we were pleased.
Jacobsen: Blasphemy laws remain a contentious issue in international human rights debates. What are the potential risks of reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions?
Langdon: At the highest level, reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions undermines the consensus I’ve mentioned several times about effectively countering hatred based on religion or belief. That consensus is not merely symbolic; it provides a framework for addressing religious hatred and incitement. It includes a six-part test under the Rabat Plan of Action for determining when incitement warrants criminalization and when it should be addressed through other means.
At another level, according to Humanists International’s latest research and the Freedom of Thought Report, 57% of the world’s population live in countries where blasphemy is punishable by law. These laws are inherently subjective and are often used to target religious minorities, including, though not exclusively, the non-religious.
Blasphemy laws violate individuals’ right to freedom of expression and infringe upon their right to freedom of religion or belief. While we and others lobby countries to repeal these harmful laws and raise awareness through initiatives like the Freedom of Thought Report and our advocacy at the UN, our efforts are undermined if governments can point to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that seems to support such laws.
This week, we were encouraged to learn that the UN Secretary-General cited our submission for his report titled Countering Hatred based on Religion or Belief. In this report, he underscored two critical points: first, that blasphemy laws are incompatible with international law, and second, the alternative mechanisms we outlined for addressing these issues.
Such affirmations from the UN help our advocacy efforts far more than having a UN Human Rights Council resolution that contradicts these principles.
Jacobsen: Striking a balance between combating hate speech and safeguarding freedom of expression is a recurring challenge. What strategies or frameworks, such as the Rabat Plan of Action, offer effective solutions?
Langdon: We support and advocate for implementing the EU-led FoRB resolution and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18, along with their follow-up initiatives. Within this framework, we emphasize the importance of the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, which provides a clear structure for balancing freedom of expression with combating hate speech.
We also actively support and engage in measures that address hate speech without infringing on freedom of expression. For example, we champion educational initiatives, address the root causes of hate speech, and promote positive counter-speech strategies.
Jacobsen: Leon, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.
Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie is an Ethiopian journalist, filmmaker, and advocate for immigrant voices whose work straddles continents and cultures. A founding member of PEN Ethiopia and the Executive Director of Bridge Entertainment, Demissie has made it his mission to amplify stories that matter. Now based in Toronto, Canada, he helms New Perspective አዲስ ቅኝት, a community journal and radio show-turned-podcast dedicated to fostering dialogue within the Ethiopian diaspora.
Since arriving in Canada in 2015, Demissie has chronicled the immigrant experience and delved deep into Ethiopia’s complex historical and political terrain. His first short documentary for CBC Short Docs, Tizita, was a collaborative effort with Canadian production houses Primitive Entertainment and Rhombus Media. Demissie’s contributions to journalism have earned him recognition, including the 2019 National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Award and a 2021 Community Champion Award from Arif Varani, MP for Parkdale in High Park, Toronto.
In this interview, Demissie unpacks the enduring impact of Ethiopia’s political upheavals, tracing the scars left by Marxist regimes, ethnic federalism, and unrelenting internal conflict. From the collapse of the monarchy in 1974 to the tumultuous shifts of power in 2018, he examines the roles played by the Derg, the TPLF, and other factions in a narrative defined by war, famine, and dislocation. Against muted global attention, Demissie calls on the Ethiopian diaspora in Canada and beyond to advocate for meaningful solutions, urging Canadians to use their platforms to spotlight one of the world’s most urgent but overlooked crises.
Pictured: Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m speaking with Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie from PEN Canada to explore the Ethiopian context. We aim to bring attention to the devastating and often overlooked mass killings that have occurred during the recent war—a topic largely unfamiliar to Canadian audiences.
Let’s begin by setting the stage. Could you provide a historical perspective on how the fall of the monarchy, the rise of military Marxism, and the collapse of the Soviet Union set the stage for the conflicts we see today in Ethiopia’s semi-autonomous regions?
Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie: Ethiopian history is complex, connecting to significant historical events, even with references to Greek mythology, such as the story of Andromeda. Ethiopia is an ancient country, but this particular story begins with the fall of the monarchy in 1974.
Over the past 50 years, Ethiopia has experienced significant instability and turmoil. When the monarchy ended, a military group known as the Derg took power, proclaiming itself Marxist, and remained in control for 17 years. During this time, from 1974 to 1991, there was an intense civil war.
Interestingly, the rebel groups fighting against the Derg were also leftist and Marxist in their ideology. After 1974, no major political group in the country was unaffiliated with some form of Marxism.
These groups are often identified as Maoist, Stalinist, or aligned with other leftist ideologies. Still, they all shared a common ideological foundation. By 1991, the main rebel group, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), managed to seize central power. Eritrean rebels secured independence for Eritrea, making Ethiopia a landlocked country.
Today, Ethiopia’s population exceeds 130 million, making it one of the most populous countries in Africa, alongside Nigeria and Egypt. It is also the most populous landlocked country on the continent. After 1991, Ethiopia adopted an ethnic federal system, with the TPLF-led coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), implementing this structure.
The TPLF-led government ruled through a divide-and-rule strategy, dividing regions along ethnic lines, which created an ethnically segmented system.
While apartheid was ending in South Africa, a system of ethnic federalism was taking root in Ethiopia. When the TPLF was removed from power in 2018 by a coalition led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, they retreated to the Tigray region, where they maintained military strength.
The TPLF had substantial resources and diplomatic support from allied nations, which made them formidable. This eventually led to a conflict with the federal government, which mobilized resources from all over the country to confront the TPLF forces.
But after one year of war, the result was the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent people and soldiers from both sides.
Jacobsen: This is a fascinating yet challenging narrative for a Canadian audience, which often frames political developments through simpler binaries—sometimes shaped by American perspectives or broader ideological histories. We tend to associate post-colonial transitions with the gradual march toward democratic ideals. However, Ethiopia’s story diverges sharply with the rise of Marxist militarists and the imposition of systems akin to apartheid among its diverse ethnic groups. Could you unpack this dynamic?
Demissie: No. The Marxist group that took power in 1974 was different. Another Marxist group became a rebel force fighting the military Marxist group that had overthrown the monarchy. By the end of the Cold War in 1991, the rebel Marxist group succeeded in ousting the military Marxists and taking power. The global political landscape had changed, so they presented themselves as champions of democracy, attempting to establish a multi-party system—at least in rhetoric.
They portrayed this to the Western world to gain approval, claiming to adopt democratic ideals. However, in practice, they implemented an ethnic federal system. They enshrined it in the constitution, making it impossible to remove today. This ethnic federal system, which was established in 1991, is one of the main reasons the country is now at war with itself.
The same group that introduced this system later fought against the federal government. By 2018, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which had been in power for nearly 30 years, faced internal conflict within its political coalition. The sentiment grew that it was time for them to relinquish power, as they were a minority holding control over political power, economic resources, and the military.
Jacobsen: Was significant domestic or international pressure on the Marxist government to step down then?
Demissie: Yes. Other groups aimed to take power, leading to clashes and conflicts within the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—a coalition of four major parties from the Tigray, Amhara, Oromo, and Southern Nations. Eventually, the Oromo and Amhara factions aligned and pushed the TPLF out of central power, relegating them to their stronghold in Tigray province in the north. From there, the TPLF planned to regain control, which sparked the bloody war that claimed over a million lives.
Jacobsen: How pivotal has ethnic federalism been in fueling Ethiopia’s internal conflicts?
Demissie: Absolutely. Ethnic federalism is a primary factor in these conflicts. Ethiopia is unique because it avoided colonization and remained independent when European powers divided Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884. The ethnic divisions entrenched in the federal system have fueled the ongoing ethnic and territorial conflicts.
Ethiopia successfully defended its territory from colonial invasions. However, the Italians returned in 1935 under Mussolini’s fascist regime. Still, they were ultimately defeated again, this time with the support of the British. That is history, and it shows that the Ethiopian people have always stood united against foreign aggression. There has never been successful foreign aggression in Ethiopian history.
Jacobsen: Ethiopia’s federal constitution, which divided the nation along ethnic lines, seems to have sown the seeds of discord. Do you believe this system, implemented by rebel Marxists, was an inevitable crisis waiting to unfold?
Demissie: The first Marxist group, or the military Marxist group that took power in 1974, officially declared Ethiopia a socialist state. They claimed the country the Socialist Republic of Ethiopia, clarifying their ideology. It aligned with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries during the Cold War, so their stance was purely ideological. They distanced Ethiopia from Western affiliations, even reducing diplomatic relations until the 1984 famine.
The 1984 famine claimed millions of lives and was widely publicized, including through the “We Are the World” concert by Michael Jackson and others, which raised funds for aid.
Jacobsen: The period also saw severe famine, driven by drought, reduced agricultural output, and crop failures. Could you elaborate on the pretext for this humanitarian catastrophe and its broader implications?
Demissie: It presented an opportunity for the Americans to re-enter the Ethiopian political scene. Until then, the military government had kept the Americans out, working exclusively with Soviet advisers. The country was run on a strict socialist ideology.
However, when the rebel group took power in 1991, socialism was nearly obsolete because the Soviet Union had collapsed. The new leaders couldn’t continue under the communist or socialist banner, so they needed something new to justify their rule. That justification was ethnicity. They adopted this system under the pretext of historical grievances.
Jacobsen: In these instances, scapegoating is often a universal tactic. How has this dynamic played out in Ethiopia’s political and ethnic struggles?
Demissie: They argued that Ethiopia’s ethnic groups had been subjugated and oppressed by one dominant group, the Amhara. The Amhara were blamed for much of what had happened in the country’s history, similar to how the Anglo-Saxons are sometimes viewed in Western history.
So they used the Amhara as a scapegoat and blamed them for all the country’s problems, turning them into the enemy of Ethiopia’s 80-plus ethnic groups. This ideology governed the country for the last 30 years. The current government, which took power in 2018, is led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who received the Nobel Peace Prize from the Nobel Committee in 2019 for negotiating a peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Eritrea was once part of Ethiopia. After Eritrea became independent, another war broke out between the countries over UN-demarcated borders and political disputes. The TPLF in Ethiopia and the EPLF in Eritrea had fought against the military regime. However, when they became leaders of their respective countries, they went to war in 1998—a bloody conflict that lasted until 2000.
A United Nations peacekeeping mission was eventually established along the border, creating a buffer zone for over 20 years. In 2018, Prime Minister Abiy ended that “no war, no peace” situation and received the Nobel Peace Prize. Then, there was a claim that Donald Trump was involved. It was peculiar. During his first term as president, Trump claimed he brokered the peace deal, but Prime Minister Abiy received the Nobel Prize. Trump publicly stated that he should have received recognition for the peace agreement.
But in reality, Abiy Ahmed facilitated that peace. Despite the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which led to renewed friendships between their communities in the diaspora, this peace was short-lived. The Tigray group initiated conflict again, resulting in a war that claimed over a million lives, adding to the devastation wrought during the previous 30 years of destabilization and division.
What concerns me deeply is why the world, including Canadian and Western media, has not paid attention to this bloody conflict. I feel everyone should be aware of it.
Jacobsen: Yes, we are all responsible.
Demissie: Thank you. We are all human, and Ethiopia, throughout its history, has fought against fascism, notably against the Italian fascists. It participated in the Korean War in 1950-1953, and the Ethiopian Kagnew Battalion was highly regarded during the Korean War. There is a statue commemorating them in Korea.
Ethiopia has also been a key player in fighting terrorism in East Africa—in Sudan and Somalia—and has supported peace processes in Rwanda and West African countries like Liberia. Ethiopia does not deserve to be ignored or abandoned by the world. The Ethiopian people have paid the price for global peace and humanity, and they should not be left out or overlooked.
But look at what’s happening now. The war continues. While the fighting in Tigray has been halted, there is still severe conflict in the Amhara and Oromia regions, with people dying every day. Famine and drought loom, and most young people go to war instead of plowing the land.
Jacobsen: Young people are fighting instead of farming, which is a serious issue.
Demissie: Child soldiers have become a common sight, which is deeply concerning. This situation requires urgent attention and emphasis. The regional political situation is dynamic, involving neighboring countries like Somalia and Egypt due to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
Significant tension has been between Egypt and Ethiopia over the dam built on the Nile River. The country is torn apart by internal and external political issues, requiring careful handling. Ethiopia has 130 million people, so if it disintegrates, the resulting human crisis could spread globally and become uncontrollable.
Jacobsen: Beyond the historical causes, young people are now fighting instead of farming, exacerbating the crisis. Looking at the present, what are the major flashpoints—politically, ethnically, and provincially? Where are the weapons coming from, and which regions are most vulnerable to famine?
Demissie: The most serious conflicts now involve the Fano militia in the Amhara region and the federal government, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), and the federal government. These two regions, Amhara and Oromiya, are the most populous in the country. The Amhara region accounts for about 24.1% of Ethiopia’s population, while the Oromiya region comprises nearly 35.8%.
Jacobsen: And the conflict has been ongoing for over two years now?
Demissie: Yes, for more than three years in these regions. The continuous fighting prevents young people from engaging in productive activities like farming, which results in economic stagnation and food shortages. If this continues, a disaster is inevitable. Weapons are entering the country through various channels due to open borders. Ethiopia shares a long border with Sudan, which is currently unstable. This makes it easy for arms to be smuggled from Sudan into Ethiopia. The border with Somalia is also porous because Ethiopian soldiers are fighting alongside Amhara and Oromo forces, leaving an insufficient workforce to secure the entire country. It’s a loose, fluid situation.
Another challenge, Ethiopia is landlocked, while Somalia has a significant outlet to the Indian Ocean. This geographical factor adds tension to the complex relationship between the two countries. Ethiopia is pursuing a memorandum of understanding with Northern Somalia, or Somaliland, to secure access to the sea. However, the central government in Somalia is not pleased with this arrangement, which has created tension in the region and could potentially lead to another conflict. The situation is highly complex.
While this unfolds, Western and Eastern powers remain focused on conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, neglecting this part of the world. This is concerning from a peace and collective security standpoint.
Jacobsen: This conflict has now dragged on for more than two years. What efforts have been made toward international resolutions through entities like the United Nations or other peacekeeping forces? Has any humanitarian intervention been akin to the long-standing UNRWA aid in Palestine?
Demissie: No, not in the same way. There was support in the past from organizations like UNHCR, UNICEF, and the World Food Programme (WFP) to provide aid in war-affected areas like Tigray and other provinces. However, this time, it’s much more difficult. United Nations workers have been killed while performing their duties, making it challenging for them to provide support. They are doing their best to help, but as the crisis expands and affects more regions of the country, it becomes increasingly challenging to meet the need. Countries may pledge support but often must follow through, as their priorities are focused elsewhere. While humanitarian aid exists, more is needed to address the problem’s scale. The support available does not match the severity of the situation.
Jacobsen: How has the Ethiopian government managed—or failed to manage—this escalating crisis?
Demissie: The United Nations and the World Food Programme have accused the government of using aid as a weapon of war by cutting supplies. Additionally, some of the warring groups, particularly in Tigray, have been caught selling food meant for humanitarian aid outside the country, leaving their people to suffer under their leadership. The level of corruption is severe, and there is currently no effective law enforcement body. The country is verging on a stateless situation, with the central government maintaining control only in the capital and some major cities. Various warring groups and militias control the rest of the country.
Yet, the media seems to project an image of control and productivity. They claim control, producing millions of tons of food, but it’s just propaganda. The reality is quite different—like trying to fill half a gun with empty promises. The situation remains dire.
Jacobsen: Canadians focus on conflicts that are closer to their economic or geopolitical interests, such as Ukraine-Russia or Israel-Palestine. That perspective is understandable, but what should Canadians remember about staying engaged with global crises like Ethiopia’s, where they might influence change as voters?
Demissie: Close to 100,000 Ethiopian Canadians live in Canada, an important point. They are good citizens who love this country, myself included. We fled from the same rebel groups that ruled Ethiopia for 30 years and eventually silenced dissenting voices and the media. Canada offered us refuge during those difficult times, and now we are citizens and taxpayers here. We need dedication from our leaders and fellow Canadians.
It is not an obligation but a question of humanity. Canada has a long history of standing for humanitarian causes. Now, I am asking Canadian society and leaders to understand the suffering of the Ethiopian diaspora community. Many members of this community are experiencing great distress due to the situation in Ethiopia. They cannot stop the war or protect their loved ones, who are often forced to flee their homes, which various warring groups destroy.
This reality has a significant psychological and emotional impact on their daily lives, making it difficult for them to be as productive as other citizens. I ask Canadians to understand this grave situation, show empathy, and use media and democratic platforms to discuss what is happening in Ethiopia. I recall when the whole Western world stood with Ethiopia when Michael Jackson and others organized the “We Are the World” concert for famine relief.
Why is silence now despite the worse situation? That’s precisely my question. Why is the world so quiet now? Are we changing our values or losing hope in humanity? Are we different now than before, or are we still committed to the same values as Canadians? We need to use our influence to open the world’s eyes to what is happening in Ethiopia and beyond, including places like Sudan.
Jacobsen: Finally, what message would you like Canadians to take away from Ethiopia’s ongoing crisis and its potential role in fostering a more informed global perspective?
Demissie: So, I ask my Canadian friends, fellow Canadians, and everyone living in Canada to understand the situation and do whatever they can to help.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Demissie: Thank you so much, Scott, for giving me the chance.
Ruslan Salakhutdinov, professeur éminent en informatique à l’Université Carnegie Mellon, se distingue parmi les figures de proue de la recherche en intelligence artificielle aujourd’hui. Son expertise porte principalement sur l’apprentissage profond, les modèles graphiques probabilistes et l’optimisation à grande échelle. Salakhutdinov a toujours été à la pointe de l’innovation dans le domaine de l’IA.
Un aspect déterminant de sa carrière a été sa collaboration avec Geoffrey Hinton, son directeur de thèse et pionnier des “réseaux de croyance profonds”, une avancée majeure dans l’apprentissage profond. Depuis l’obtention de son doctorat en 2009, Salakhutdinov a publié plus de 40 travaux influents couvrant des sujets allant de l’apprentissage par programme bayésien à des systèmes d’IA à grande échelle. Ses contributions révolutionnaires ont non seulement approfondi la compréhension académique, mais ont également favorisé des applications pratiques de l’IA dans l’industrie.
Son passage en tant que directeur de la recherche en IA chez Apple, de 2016 à 2020, a marqué une période cruciale dans sa carrière. Au cours de cette période, il a dirigé des avancées significatives dans les technologies d’IA. Par la suite, il est retourné à Carnegie Mellon pour poursuivre ses recherches académiques, consolidant ainsi son rôle de leader dans le domaine. En 2023, il a élargi son influence en rejoignant le conseil d’administration de Felix Smart, visant à utiliser le potentiel de l’IA pour améliorer les soins apportés aux plantes et aux animaux.
Reconnu comme un conférencier de choix, Salakhutdinov a dispensé des tutoriels dans des institutions renommées telles que le Simons Institute à Berkeley et le MLSS à Tübingen, en Allemagne. Ses travaux, largement cités par ses pairs, soulignent son impact durable sur l’IA et l’apprentissage automatique. En tant que membre du CIFAR, il continue d’inspirer la prochaine génération de chercheurs tout en repoussant les limites de l’intelligence machine.
La carrière de Salakhutdinov dans l’IA débute lorsqu’il découvre le célèbre ouvrage Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach durant ses études de premier cycle. Ses premiers travaux avec Geoffrey Hinton ont jeté les bases des innovations en matière de réseaux de croyance profonds. Actuellement, sa recherche se concentre sur la construction de systèmes d’IA autonomes et robustes capables de prendre des décisions de manière indépendante. Face aux défis de fiabilité, de raisonnement et de sécurité, le travail de Salakhutdinov établit un pont entre la théorie de pointe et les applications pratiques, façonnant un avenir où les systèmes d’IA enrichissent la créativité et la capacité de résolution de problèmes des humains.
Ruslan Salakhutdinov. (Medium)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen : Qu’est-ce qui a d’abord éveillé votre intérêt pour l’intelligence artificielle plutôt que pour les subtilités de l’intelligence humaine ?
Ruslan Salakhutdinov : Mon intérêt pour l’IA a commencé durant mes études de premier cycle en Caroline du Nord. Un livre de Peter Norvig et Stuart Russell, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, m’a fasciné. Publié en 1995, il a suscité mon intérêt pour ce domaine.
J’ai alors décidé de me lancer dans des études supérieures en IA et j’ai postulé dans plusieurs universités. J’ai eu la chance d’intégrer l’Université de Toronto, où j’ai commencé à travailler avec Geoffrey Hinton. Ces événements ont représenté un tournant décisif dans ma carrière en IA. J’ai toujours été intrigué par les machines capables d’apprendre par elles-mêmes et d’effectuer des tâches créatives. La notion de construire des systèmes capables d’apprendre me fascinait lorsque j’ai commencé mes études de premier cycle à la fin des années 1990. À cette époque, le terme “IA” n’était pas encore très en vogue ; pendant mes études supérieures, l’accent était davantage mis sur l’apprentissage automatique et l’apprentissage automatique statistique.
Le domaine était principalement axé sur les statistiques, considéré comme une discipline à part entière. L’IA était souvent perçue comme un domaine réservé aux systèmes de soutien à la décision. Collaborer avec Geoffrey Hinton et son laboratoire a complètement révolutionné mon travail. À l’époque, autour de 2005 ou 2006, Geoffrey Hinton a commencé à promouvoir l’apprentissage profond et l’apprentissage de multiples niveaux de représentation. J’avais simplement démarré mon doctorat, donc j’étais au bon endroit au bon moment.
En vie, le timing est essentiel. Ilya Sutskever, cofondateur d’OpenAI, était mon camarade de laboratoire. Nous étions assis l’un à côté de l’autre, et d’autres personnes menaient désormais beaucoup de travaux dans différentes entreprises et universités.
Jacobsen : Geoffrey Hinton est devenu une figure emblématique au cours de l’année écoulée, principalement en raison de ses mises en garde concernant l’intelligence artificielle. D’autre part, Eric Schmidt, ancien PDG de Google, a proposé une perspective plus tempérée. Il souligne la nécessité de comprendre et de contrôler les systèmes d’IA et suggère même qu’il pourrait être nécessaire de “débrancher” ces derniers s’ils se comportent de manière imprévisible.
Tandis que les visions de Ray Kurzweil, axées sur la loi des rendements croissants et sa quête presque spirituelle de fusionner avec l’IA pour explorer le cosmos, évoquent des souvenirs de Carl Sagan. Le discours autour de l’IA est aussi varié que le domaine lui-même.
À l’instar d’un espace vectoriel, cette diversité reflète comment des termes comme IA, AGI (Intelligence Artificielle Générale) et ASI (Intelligence Artificielle Superintelligente) portent des interprétations différentes. Pourquoi pensez-vous que ces définitions divergentes persistent ?
Salakhutdinov : Nous manquons de références fixes ou d’un ensemble standardisé de problèmes qui nous permettraient de définir clairement ces termes. Si nous avons un système qui résout ces problèmes, cela signifie que nous avons atteint l’AGI. Ou si nous avons un ensemble de problèmes que nous résolvons, nous avons atteint l’ASI. Par conséquent, les définitions dépendent de la personne avec laquelle vous parlez. Des personnes comme Geoffrey Hinton et Eric Schmidt disent que la communauté académique fait face à des risques existentiels potentiels.
Il y a aussi des personnes qui soutiennent que nous atteindrons un point où ces systèmes deviendront très intelligents. Ils seront performants et, à un moment, pourront atteindre la superintelligence. Cependant, il est très probable que nous atteindrons ce risque existentiel. Il existe des risques associés à l’IA dans son ensemble, et des recherches sont en cours à ce sujet. Une des sphères sur lesquelles je me concentre à CMU est la construction de systèmes agentiques, ou d’IA capables de prendre des décisions ou d’agir de manière autonome. Imaginez un assistant personnel capable de trouver les meilleurs vols pour San Francisco demain. Cet assistant collecterait l’information et réserverait le vol pour vous.
On peut envisager cela comme un assistant personnel. Bien sûr, cela comporte des risques, car nous passons de systèmes comme ChatGPT, où l’on pose une question et obtient une réponse, à des systèmes où l’on donne une tâche et où l’agent tente d’exécuter cette tâche. Pour ma part, je considère que, en ce qui concerne l’AGI, je pense à des systèmes autonomes capables de prendre des décisions.
Où nous en sommes actuellement est incertain, car nous connaissons des progrès rapides avec ChatGPT et de nombreuses autres avancées. Continuerons-nous cette croissance exponentielle ou atteindrons-nous un plafond? À un moment donné, nous atteindrons ce plafond, et obtenir les 10 ou 15 % restants de progrès sera difficile, mais ces systèmes resteront très utiles.
Quand atteindrons-nous vraiment le niveau d’AGI, c’est-à-dire des systèmes suffisamment généraux pour réaliser n’importe quelle tâche pour nous, reste flou à mes yeux. Les gens ont des prédictions. Par exemple, Geoffrey Hinton pensait initialement que cela prendrait moins de 100 ans. Avec des modèles comme ChatGPT, ces prédictions ont été accélérées à environ 30 ans. Il affirme que cela pourrait prendre 10 ans, mais il reste encore beaucoup d’incertitudes.
Prévoir quoi que ce soit au-delà de cinq ans est complexe car le développement de l’IA peut soit s’accélérer avec des systèmes devenant meilleurs, plus intelligents et plus autonomes, dotés de puissantes capacités de raisonnement—comme nous le constatons avec les modèles d’OpenAI tels que GPT-4 et GPT-3.5, capables de raisonner de manière complexe et de résoudre des problèmes mathématiques difficiles—soit pourrait progresser plus graduellement.
Jacobsen : Dans les prochaines années, nous pourrions voir émerger des outils d’analyse profonds. Lorsque nous parlons d’agency en IA, cela revêt une signification très différente par rapport à l’agency humaine ou animale. Cette évolution des grands modèles de langage et des systèmes d’IA semble annoncer une nouvelle ère. Que pensez-vous de ces capacités agentiques ?
Salakhutdinov : Vous souhaitez créer des systèmes qui peuvent être vos assistants. Pensez à un système qui gère toute votre planification, vos tâches, et tout ce dont vous avez besoin. C’est votre conseiller financier qui vous fournit des conseils sur vos finances. C’est votre médecin qui vous donne des conseils sur votre santé. À un moment donné, lors de mes échanges avec mes collègues à ce sujet, certains affirment que si vous avez un assistant IA capable de beaucoup de choses pour vous, cela frôle l’AGI.
Certains nommeraient cela AGI, car le problème que nous voyons actuellement est que GPT excelle dans le codage—il est le meilleur concours de codage. Les gens essaient de coder quelque chose dans un délai donné, et ces systèmes surpassent les humains. Je me suis dit : “C’est bien.” Ils se sont dit : “N’êtes-vous pas impressionné ? Nous avons des systèmes qui peuvent surpasser des codeurs compétitifs.”
La raison pour laquelle c’est impressionnant mais n’a pas fait le tour est que ces systèmes ne sont toujours pas fiables. Il n’est pas question de déléguer une tâche à un système et d’être sûr à 100 % qu’il la résoudra. Être sûr à 80 % qu’une tâche sera résolue n’est pas suffisant. Ce concept de hallucinogenèse et de robustesse dans le système est actuellement absent. C’est pourquoi, par exemple, dans le codage, il n’a pas remplacé les codeurs professionnels. C’est un outil utile, mais il n’a pas encore atteint le niveau où je pourrais remplacer tous mes programmeurs par une IA dans mon organisation.
La technologie IA les aide à mieux coder, mais n’a pas atteint un niveau de robustesse et de fiabilité satisfaisant. C’est comme avoir un assistant personnel dont 20 % des réservations sont fautives. Ce n’est tout simplement pas acceptable. C’est là où nous en sommes. Pour atteindre l’AGI, nous avons besoin que le système soit robuste face à ces hallucinogènes. Nous n’y sommes pas encore.
Jacobsen : Les gouvernements, les décideurs politiques et les économistes sont-ils prêts à gérer les changements radicaux que l’IA exige ? Par exemple, ces systèmes nécessiteront probablement d’accéder à d’importantes quantités de données personnelles pour prendre des décisions, soulevant des préoccupations urgentes concernant la vie privée. De plus, le paysage économique pourrait subir un changement radical si les entreprises choisissent des solutions d’IA plus performantes que les employés humains. Comment la société devrait-elle naviguer dans ces doubles défis de la vie privée et des perturbations liées à l’emploi ?
Salakhutdinov : Les modèles que nous voyons aujourd’hui demandent beaucoup de données et s’améliorent grâce à des données en particulier. S’ils vous connaissent, les décisions qu’ils prennent peuvent être beaucoup meilleures. Cet aspect sera important. Des réglementations concernant l’utilisation de ces données vont être prochainement mises en place. Actuellement, ces modèles ne sont pas encore à un stade où ils peuvent être déployés de manière fiable ou être pleinement utiles.
Les économistes étudient certains aspects liés au déplacement d’emplois. L’ampleur de ce phénomène est encore incertaine. On m’a donné un exemple d’une entreprise qui a licencié plusieurs traducteurs d’une langue à une autre, car les machines peuvent le faire mieux, moins cher et plus vite. La traduction de l’anglais vers le français en est un exemple. C’est un élément à prendre en compte, surtout à mesure que ces systèmes s’améliorent.
Une question que je me pose toujours est : lorsque ces systèmes atteindront un point où certaines parties de notre économie verront des déplacements, que devront faire les gouvernements pour recycler les gens ? Les deux prochaines années seront cruciales, car si les changements progressent comme ces dernières années, les transformations seront assez rapides. D’ordinaire, l’humanité s’adapte sur une génération ou deux. Mais si cela se produit en cinq à dix ans, c’est plus rapide. Cela mérite donc réflexion, tout comme le suivi de la progression de ces modèles. D’ici 2025, nous verrons chaque année apparaître une itération de modèles, à l’image de GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4.
Nous attendons donc toujours GPT-5. Google a lancé Gemini 2, vous savez, le Gemini 2.4. Cette année s’annonce également intéressante car elle représente la prochaine étape des modèles pionniers, qui consomment davantage de données et de puissance de calcul. La question cette année est donc de savoir quel sera cet écart si nous voyons apparaître GPT-5 ?
Jacobsen : Eric Schmidt a plaisanté en disant qu’un jour, les Américains pourraient se tourner vers le Canada pour de l’hydroélectricité en raison des énormes besoins énergétiques des systèmes d’IA avancés. Que pensez-vous de cette observation, et comment la consommation énergétique de l’IA pourrait-elle façonner la dynamique des ressources mondiales ?
Salakhutdinov : C’est vrai. À mesure que ces modèles grandissent, il y a une réflexion sur la manière de réduire les coûts, car autrement, cela deviendra inabordable. Des recherches supplémentaires devraient être menées pour rendre ces modèles plus efficaces et moins gourmands en calcul. Sinon, les coûts seront prohibitifs.
Jacobsen : Jensen Huang a récemment souligné que nous approchons de la fin de la loi de Moore, mais il a mis en avant des annonces transformantes au CES qui suggèrent de nouvelles efficacités matérielles et logicielles. Il a décrit cela comme une “exponentielle sur une exponentielle”. Comment ces gains d’efficacité cumulés influencent-ils votre vision de la trajectoire de l’IA ?
Salakhutdinov : C’est vrai—par exemple, en ce qui concerne le matériel. Si vous prenez NVIDIA, certaines de leurs dernières GPU présentent des améliorations considérables par rapport à cinq ans en arrière. À mesure que nous atteignons ces gains d’efficacité, nous arrivons au point où nous formons ces modèles en utilisant toutes les données disponibles sur Internet. En pratique, toutes les données accessibles sont inéluctablement intégrées à ces modèles. À ce stade, il n’existe pas de deuxième ou troisième internet. Ainsi, les données disponibles sont limitées par ce à quoi nous avons accès.
Beaucoup de données se trouvent aujourd’hui dans le domaine de la vidéo et des images, ainsi que dans d’autres modalités et la voix. Il est possible que nous contactions également des données que nous qualifions de données générées de manière synthétique : des données créées par modèles que nous pouvons utiliser pour entraîner et améliorer nos modèles en continu.
Jacobsen : J’ai réfléchi à un concept où nous nous reposons sur des données limitées et générons des ensembles de données artificiels par extrapolation statistique. Comment appelle-t-on cette approche, et à quel point pensez-vous qu’elle deviendra centrale dans les avancées de l’IA ?
Salakhutdinov : Cela désigne ce qu’on appelle des données artificielles. Par exemple, à mesure que ces systèmes s’améliorent, vous pouvez générer des données artificielles depuis votre modèle. Il existe des méthodes de filtrage et de nettoyage de données qui deviennent dès lors des données d’entraînement pour le modèle suivant.
Il y a des éléments de bootstrap que vous pouvez mettre en œuvre et qui fonctionnent raisonnablement bien. Cependant, nous ne pouvons toujours pas simplement entraîner des modèles avec des données artificielles.
Nous avons encore besoin de données réelles. Mais comment les obtenir ? Je soupçonne que les modèles multimodaux utiliseront à l’avenir des images, des vidéos, des textes et des discours. Un vaste éventail de recherches est en cours ; un de mes anciens étudiants, maintenant professeur au MIT, analyse des dispositifs collectant des données et construisant ces modèles fondamentaux basés sur cela.
Jacobsen : Dispose-t-on d’un cadre théorique pour déterminer l’efficacité optimale d’une unité de calcul unique ? Ou en sommes-nous toujours aux conjectures empiriques ?
Salakhutdinov : Oui. Il existe des lois de mise à l’échelle.
Les lois de mise à l’échelle énoncent ceci : “Regardez, nous construisons un modèle de 500 milliards de paramètres. De combien de données avons-nous besoin ? Quel degré de précision pouvons-nous espérer obtenir ? Il est très coûteux de faire tourner ce modèle, n’est-ce pas ?” Vous devez procéder à un test unique pour obtenir ce modèle. Vous ne pouvez pas faire plusieurs essais. Ainsi, ce qui se passe, c’est que vous prenez des modèles plus petits et construisez ces courbes en disant : “Voilà combien de données j’ai, voilà combien de calculs j’ai, et voici la précision que j’obtiens.”
“Si je tiens à augmenter les données tout en gardant le même circuit, voici mon niveau de précision. Si j’augmente les données et le calcul, j’accéderai à ce niveau de précision.” Vous bâtissez tout cela sur de petits modèles puis extrapolez davantage. Et vous concluez : “D’accord, si je dispose de davantage de données et de calculs, voici le niveau de précision attendu.” Cela a été un principe directeur pour une bonne partie de la construction de modèles existants.
Cependant, c’est aussi très difficile à interpréter. Personne n’a pu dire : “Regardez, si nous triplons les calculs et les données, nous atteindrons l’AGI, ou l’ASI, ou encore un certain seuil”. Nous avons ces lois de mise à l’échelle jusqu’à un certain point, mais nous n’avons aucune idée de ce à quoi cela ressemblera au-delà.
Les prévisions sont délicates. L’idée initiale suggérait qu’en injectant plus de données, de calculs, nous pourrions avoir de meilleurs modèles ; c’est ce que l’industrie effectue. Logo, émerge un second paradigme, ce qu’on appelle le “test-time compute” ou le calcul d’inférence, privilégié par ces modèles de raisonnement, consistant à dire : “Eh bien, laissez-moi réfléchir davantage pour un problème spécifique, et si je consacre plus de ressources de calcul à ce problème, je pourrai vous fournir des réponses.” C’est ainsi que se dessinent quelques lois de mise à l’échelle : ces systèmes peuvent se perfectionner. Pourtant, encore une fois, personne n’a clairement défini ce qu’atteindre l’ASI ou l’AGI signifierait, donc nous ne sommes toujours pas là. Il n’est pas évident que nous y parviendrons.
Jacobsen : Lorsque nous évoquons l’AGI et l’ASI, les définitions semblent reposer sur un mélange de facteurs : la puissance de calcul, l’efficacité des réseaux neuronaux, voire l’adaptabilité évolutive. Certains affirment que cadrer l’AGI selon l’intelligence humaine fixe un repère erroné, puisque la cognition humaine elle-même est spécialisée et comporte des lacunes. Devrions-nous redéfinir les repères d’intelligence en IA pour prendre en compte ces nuances ?
Salakhutdinov : C’est une très bonne question. Les gens associent souvent l’AGI à l’intelligence humaine. Mais il est incertain que ces systèmes puissent égaler l’intelligence humaine. Parce que ChatGPT ou d’autres modèles de langage avancés excellent en mathématiques, cela signifierait-il qu’ils sont intelligents ? Il y a quelque chose d’essentiel dans l’intelligence humaine qui permet d’extrapoler, de raisonner et d’accomplir des choses que les machines ne peuvent pas, du moins pour l’heure. Par exemple, lorsque l’on enjoint à un modèle : “Quel est le plus grand, 9 ou 9,11 ?”, le système confond : “Eh bien, neuf est supérieur à 9,11”.
Jacobsen : On observe clairement des lacunes en matière de fiabilité des systèmes d’IA—des domaines où le bon sens pourrait dicter une voie, mais où les machines échouent. Bien que l’IA excelle dans des tâches telles que la rédaction et le résumé, elle peine dans d’autres, comme l’intelligence physique en robotique. Un expert en robotique a commenté un jour que la première entreprise à construire un robot capable de vider un lave-vaisselle deviendra probablement une entreprise milliardaire. Que pensez-vous de cette séparation entre les capacités théoriques de l’IA et ses applications pratiques ?
Salakhutdinov : En effet. Toutefois, cela démontre combien il est compliqué d’anticiper, car il y a dix ans, beaucoup pensaient que construire des machines créatives—capables de produire des dessins originaux ou de rédiger des textes novateurs—serait nettement plus difficile que de réaliser un robot pour vider un lave-vaisselle. Aujourd’hui, il semble que ce soit exactement l’inverse.
Je peux en effet solliciter ces systèmes pour rédiger des textes créatifs pour moi, peaufiner ma rédaction, générer des images réalistes, composer des choses d’ailleurs intéressantes pour des designers, par exemple. Ces outils sont incroyables.
Cela souligne la difficulté de prédire le futur à cinq ans. Des personnalités comme Geoffrey Hinton, Eric Schmidt, et d’autres sonnent l’alarme en déclarant qu’il existe un risque non négligeable que ces modèles deviennent très dangereux. Je ne crois pas à l’idée d’un avenir de type Skynet, où les robots ou modèles d’IA nous jugeraient inutiles et auraient le pouvoir. Je n’envisage pas cela pour le futur, mais comme mentionné, il reste difficile de prévoir ce qui peut arriver dans cinq à dix ans.
Nous devons tout considérer. Récemment, j’ai échangé avec Geoffrey Hinton et je lui ai demandé : “Pourquoi êtes-vous si inquiet ?” Il a mentionné son appréhension, mais aussi l’importance d’allouer des ressources à la recherche sur la sécurité—et, comme vous l’avez souligné, comprendre l’économie, les déplacements d’emplois, comment ces systèmes peuvent être plus fiables, et la manière de mener à bien des recherches sur la sécurité.
Cela n’a jamais été prioritaire, du moins jusqu’à maintenant. J’y adhère. Nous devons effectuer davantage de travaux, de recherches, et nous concentrer davantage sur la sécurité, l’économie, tout ce qui est lié à ces modèles.
Jacobsen : Parmi vos pairs dans le domaine de l’IA, qui considérez-vous comme ayant des prédictions toujours pertinentes ? Y a-t-il une personne dont les aperçus vous ont particulièrement frappé ?
Salakhutdinov : C’est une question délicate. Je ne connais personne ayant fait des prédictions toujours correctes.
Jacobsen : Je me demandais si le public a une image précise, car il utilise de nombreux mêmes termes. Les définitions sont quelque peu biaisées. Cela produit une confusion excessive sur la manière dont l’information est relayée aux gens ou la façon dont ils la perçoivent. Autrefois, l’IA se concentrait sur l’apprentissage automatique, les moteurs statistiques, etc. Toutefois, ces domaines étaient assez distincts. À présent, pourtant, ils sont au premier plan comme s’il ne s’agissait que d’une seule chose. Cela provoque probablement une certaine confusion, mais cela servira sans doute à clarifier la situation. Ravi d’avoir échangé avec vous, et merci beaucoup pour votre temps.
Salakhutdinov : Je vous remercie. C’était un plaisir de vous rencontrer également. Merci d’avoir conduit cet échange.
Points à retenir
Ruslan Salakhutdinov est un professeur éminent en informatique, reconnu pour ses contributions à l’intelligence artificielle.
Son parcours est marqué par des collaborations avec des figures emblématiques telles que Geoffrey Hinton.
Les défis entourant l’IA, comme la sécurité et l’éthique, appellent à un équilibre entre innovation et responsabilité.
Dans un paysage technologique en constante évolution, la question de l’impact à long terme de l’intelligence artificielle sur la société reste cruciale. Alors que nous avançons vers des systèmes plus performants et plus autonomes, il sera essentiel de continuer à explorer les implications de ces avancées pour l’emploi, la vie privée et notre conception même de l’intelligence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: July 16, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 8, 2025
Abstract
Dr. Arnie Wendroff explores the complex relationship between Christianity and traditional beliefs in Malawi, particularly within the educational system. His interview examines the challenges of integrating religious teachings with scientific education, highlighting widespread beliefs in witchcraft and sorcery. Wendroff differentiates between anthropological definitions of witchcraft and sorcery, drawing from his extensive research conducted between the 1970s and 2000s. He discusses the role of witchfinders, the impact of socio-economic changes on supernatural beliefs, and the persistence of these practices despite modernization efforts. This interview provides a nuanced understanding of the cultural and religious dynamics shaping contemporary Malawian society.
Keywords: Christianity in education, cultural anthropology, Malawi, sorcery, socio-economic factors, supernatural beliefs, traditional medicine, witchcraft, witchfinders
Introduction
Dr. Arnie Wendroff’s in-depth interview offers a comprehensive examination of Malawi’s cultural and religious landscape, focusing on the enduring beliefs in witchcraft and sorcery. Through his extensive fieldwork and research from the 1970s to the early 2000s, Wendroff sheds light on how Christianity has been integrated into the education system and its interplay with traditional medicinal practices. He distinguishes between witchcraft and sorcery from an anthropological perspective and discusses the societal roles of witchfinders. This interview delves into the socio-economic factors that sustain supernatural beliefs, providing valuable insights into the resilience of these practices in modern Malawi.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Dr. Arnie Wendroff
Section 1: Christianity in Malawi’s Education System
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How is Christianity involved in this system in Malawi?
Dr. Arnie Wendroff: It is challenging since religion, particularly Christianity, has been integrated into school syllabi for a long time. In any event, they cannot teach Christianity and science simultaneously. They expect people to believe in science, its details, and the whole concept of randomness. Most people do not accurately describe this when it comes to things like cancer and misfortune. Religion purports to explain that, but it needs to do a better job. There are a lot of Christian rituals, songs, and et cetera. Imagery is in the context of traditional medicine, which involves finding—I have a picture in my office. Let me see if I can show it to you. If you can see this picture, it is a lady who would find her. Now, the national charge for the court is in terms of what they are doing, and typically, they are not.
Section 2: Supernatural Beliefs and Professional Use
Jacobsen: Is there a select group of people who know it is supernatural, therefore not real, but still use this cynically for some professional or political purpose?
Wendroff: It is hard to be inside people’s heads. From my experience, I am not always in contact with people. I have been there for a long time and have lived there for a few years. The last time I was there was in 2006. However, almost everyone believes in the supernatural and witchcraft, including many healers and certainly witchfinders. Some of them are charlatans in terms of how they use their work. But they believe in the supernatural etiology and the reality of witchcraft. By the way, from a technical terminology perspective, in terms of Malawi and many other places, but certainly Malawi, it is not witchcraft in the legal sense. It is sorcery. My dissertation dealt extensively with sorcery. I later found postdoctoral work in the late eighties.
Section 3: Defining Witchcraft and Sorcery
Wendroff: Witchcraft, by anthropological definition, is an inherent power in the person. They do not have to think about it sometimes, but they can wish evil things to happen to others. In many cases, it involves imbuing some object with the power to harm the victim remotely. In many cases, it is useful if the object can contain some piece of the victim, such as hair or menstrual blood. It almost invariably involves an object containing the essence of the evil thought.
Sorcery involves a more deliberate act, such as using objects or rituals to cause harm. The classic book by E.E. Evans-Pritchard describes how people in Sudan believed that witches had supernumerary organs in their abdomens that could harm others. This idea influenced how people understood witchcraft and sorcery. My dissertation research focused on medicinal and sorcery beliefs and how they interacted with biomedicine, religion, et cetera.
Section 4: Specialization and Definitions
Jacobsen: So this is your specialization. This is important. I am getting expert views. Within this interview context, we will speak purely within the context of Malawi and the doctoral-level definitions and implications of sorcery and witchcraft. I want you to go further on the definitions because you were defining witchcraft, but the definition of sorcery still needs to be finished.
Wendroff: Sorcery, again, is the ability of a person to take some object, preferably an object that has been in intimate contact with or has a piece of the person who is the intended victim, and cast a spell on it. It might be spoken or thought, whatever it is, but it is a spell or verbal command to this inanimate object to go and do harm. I can show you. I have many of these things upstairs on my parlour floor that I have collected from these witchfinders, which I can show you. I can send you some pictures at a later date.
Section 5: Practical Applications and Terminology
Wendroff: So, it might be worthwhile to at least peek at the chapter in this book I wrote. But from my experience, I can only talk about my experience. The way it works, there is a saving grace. Apropos of the fact that most of these bad things are what a witch doctor purports to do or is alleged to be done by their neighbours or the witchfinder, we do not use the word sorcery binder. We use the word witchfinder, but it is a sorcery binder.
Jacobsen: So the terms are backward, essentially, in practice?
Wendroff: Yes. Here is the deal. Almost everyone possesses some anti-sorcery charm, physical objects, and amulets, among other things. So there are lots and lots of witchcraft accusations that end up in front of these witchfinders.
Section 6: Witchcraft Accusations and Protective Charms
Wendroff: In many cases, the witchfinders will cleverly say that the purported accused witch had no evil intent. Some third parties made the protective amulet or charm. When that third party, a ritual expert who makes the protective charm, made a mistake, said the wrong word, or used the wrong ingredient, it enabled this protective charm to go renegade and unconsciously—not willed by the alleged sorcerer—go and harm someone else.
So, with that, I will stop here for a moment. You have a complainant. You have a person who is a victim, who is sick or has some emotional or work-related problem. The so-called ‘victim,’ believes that some sorcerer has victimized them. The witchfinder will often say, “Yes, I have identified the person or persons you suggested as the bad guy, the sorcerer, but they did not intend to do anything bad to you. It was this renegade charm made by some other person.”
Section 7: Neutralizing Sorcery
Wendroff: So I summon the alleged witch or sorcerer and command them to relinquish that charm, that renegade charm, that object. I will spread some material, magical medicine, or incantation over it to neutralize it. Therefore, this will no longer burden you, the victim.
At the same time, although the source was identified, the alleged perpetrator, the sorcerer, is absolved. So, the heat is taken off the alleged sorcerer, who can then be reintegrated into society. Everything is, as we said in the sixties, copacetic. From the guides I have observed, that is quite a commonplace scenario. I was lucky when I was doing my dissertation research.
Section 8: Dissertation Research and Mary Douglas
Wendroff: It was in the summer. I was a teacher every summer so that I could take off for a few months. I took leave without pay. So, I researched every summer for three to four months in Malawi from 1972 to 1979. While doing the library work and background reading, I found a compilation by a famous English anthropologist, Mary Douglas, titled “Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions,” an edited book with chapters by many anthropologists.
One was a lady anthropologist working several hundred miles north of where I worked in Tanzania. The tribe she was working with had many members flocking down to Malawi in the early sixties, before and around the time of independence for Malawi, to see a famous witchfinder who went by the name of Chicago. His real name was Brian Chindas. In any event, I heard a lot about him. When I was there in 1986, I was included in the census, the decennial census in Malawi, and the census taker took everyone, including me. So I saw the questionnaire, and most people at the time—and still today—have no birth certificate and do not know precisely when they were born.
Section 9: Understanding Historical Context Through Census
Wendroff: So, the census taker had a series of questions about historical events. This guy, Chicago, was such a notable figure that he was one of those historical events used to try to pin down when a person was born. So that is how I learned about Chicago. That was in 1986. When I went back after my dissertation in 1986, I found out that Chicago, which had been in exile for many years since independence, was back. There was a major welcoming ceremony with all sorts of dignitaries, police, and many traditional healers.
Section 10: Interaction with Prominent Witchfinder
Wendroff: I was introduced to him. I was the only white guy there. From my prior research, I knew how the system worked. I befriended him and his secretaries, who received the letters and kept records. In any event, they cannot teach Christianity and then teach science simultaneously and have people believe in science, the nitty-gritty and the whole concept of, why me or the whole concept of–what’s the word–randomness. Hence, most people don’t subscribe to that when it comes to life, chances, and misfortunes. So that’s something that religion purports to explain, but it doesn’t do a good job.
Section 11: Christian Rituals in Traditional Medicine
Wendroff: So there’s a lot of Christian ritual, songs, and imagery within the context of traditional medicine and witch finding. I have a picture here in my office. Do you see this picture here? This is a lady who finds her. Do you see the cross on her cap?
Jacobsen: Yes. So that’s par for the course regarding what goes on in traditional beliefs there. Is there a select group of people who know it’s supernatural, therefore not real, but still use this cynically for some professional or political purpose?
Section 12: Prevalence of Supernatural Beliefs
Wendroff: It’s hard to be inside people’s heads. I would surmise from my experience that I’m not always in contact with people. I’ve been there 20 times and lived there for two years. I haven’t been there since 2006. But pretty much everyone believes in the supernatural and witchcraft. The healers, many of them, and certainly the witchfinders, some of them, are charlatans in how they do their work. But they believe in supernatural ideologies and the reality of witchcraft.
And by the way, from a technical terminology standpoint, in terms of Malawi and many other places, but certainly Malawi, it is not witchcraft in the anthropological terminology. It’s sorcery. Witchcraft and my dissertation dealt exclusively with sorcery. I later found post-doc work in the late eighties when I went back. Witchcraft, by anthropological definition, is something that is an inherent power in the person. It doesn’t even have to think about it in some cases but can merely wish evil, bad things to happen to other people, whereas sorcery involves making an object which is then imbued by the sorcerer’s power, spells, and so on, to go and remotely harm the victim.
Section 13: Detailed Definitions and Dissertation Insights
Wendroff: In many cases, it’s useful if the object can contain some piece of the victim or has been in contact with it, like hair, menstrual blood, or whatever. But in any event, it almost invariably involves that object, which is the vector of the evil thoughts. Whereas in witchcraft, the evil thoughts can directly damage the intended victim. This was described initially by one guy, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, who wrote a classic book, something about witchcraft and sorcery among the Azande or something, where those people in Sudan at the time believed that the witch had a supernumerary organ in their abdomen, and they would perform an autopsy on people believed to be witches. They would find this organ on occasion, which gave rise to that organ, which I wrote about in my dissertation. I’ve never seen anyone else allude to it. It’s what’s called a teratoma, where you have a cyst of endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm, the three layers of the developing embryo. That ectoderm or skin occasionally in people, or they call it a hydatid mole. It’s this membrane, and inside it is hair and teeth.
Wendroff (continued): My dissertation research was on traditional medicine and sorcery beliefs, how they interacted with biomedicine regions, etc.
Section 14: Doctoral and Postdoctoral Specialization
Jacobsen: And this is where your doctoral or postdoctoral specialization was based?
Wendroff: My dissertation research focused on traditional medicine and sorcery beliefs in Malawi.
Section 15: Casting Spells and Collecting Artifacts
Wendroff: Sorcery, again, is the ability of a person to take some object, preferably an object that has been in intimate contact with or has a piece of the person who is the intended victim, cast a spell, it might be spoken, or it might be thought, whatever it is. But it is a spell, a verbal command to this inanimate object to go and do harm. I have many of these things upstairs on my parlour floor that I have collected from these witchfinders, which I can show you.
Section 16: Sharing Research and Terminology Clarification
Wendroff: Taking a peek at the chapter in this book I wrote is worthwhile. From my experience, I can only talk about my experience. There’s a saving grace to it. Apropos, we don’t use the word “sorcery binder” for most of these bad things that a sorcerer purports to do or is alleged to do by his neighbours or the witchfinder. We’re using the word witch binder, but it’s a sorcery binder. The terms are essentially backward in practice.
Section 17: Anti-Sorcery Practices and Witchfinder Accusations
Wendroff: Here’s the deal. Almost everyone possesses some anti-sorcery charms, physical objects, amulets, and other things because of this ubiquitous belief in sorcery. There are lots of witchcraft accusations that end up in front of these witchfinders. In many cases, the witchfinders will cleverly say that the accused witch had no evil intent. The protective amulet or charm, made by some third party, was made by some ritual expert who made a mistake, said the wrong word, or used the wrong ingredient. That enabled this protective charm to go renegade and unconsciously harm someone else, not willed by the alleged sorcerer. The witchfinder will command the alleged sorcerer to relinquish that renegade charm. I will spread some material, magical medicine, or incantation over it to neutralize it. Therefore, this will no longer burden you, the victim. At the same time, although the source was identified, the alleged sorcerer is absolved. So, the heat is taken off the alleged sorcerer, who can then be reintegrated into society. Everything is, as we said in the sixties, copacetic.
Section 18: Dissertation Research and Mary Douglas’s Work
Wendroff: That’s quite a commonplace scenario, at least from the guys I’ve observed. I was lucky when I was doing my dissertation research. It was in the summer. I was a teacher every summer so that I could take off for a few months. I took these without pay. I researched in Malawi for 2 to 4 months every summer from ’72 to ’79. While doing background reading on this, I came across a compilation by a famous English anthropologist, Mary Douglas, called “Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions,” or “Confessions and Accusations.” It was an edited book with chapters by different anthropologists. One was a lady anthropologist working several hundred miles north of where I worked in Tanzania. She found that many people from her area had migrated to Malawi in the early sixties, before and around the time of Malawi’s independence, to see a super-famous witchfinder named Chicago, whose real name was Bryton Chuenda. In any event, I heard a lot about him.
Section 19: Census Research and Learning About Chicago
Wendroff: When I was in Malawi in 1986, I was included in the decennial census. The census taker included everyone, and they included me. I saw the questionnaire. Most people at the time, and even today, do not have birth certificates or know exactly when they were born. The census taker asked a series of questions related to historical events to estimate a person’s birth year. One of the notable historical figures, Chilembwe, was used as a reference point to help determine birth years. That’s how I first learned about Chilembwe back in 1986.
Section 20: Returning to Malawi and Meeting Chicago
Wendroff: When I returned to Malawi after completing my dissertation in 1986, I discovered that a prominent figure who had been in exile for many years since Malawi’s independence had returned. There was a major welcoming ceremony with numerous dignitaries, police, and many traditional healers. I was introduced to him. I was the only white person there, but I understood how the system worked from prior research in the region. I befriended him and his secretaries, who were responsible for receiving letters, keeping records, and drafting his responses to the headmen who wrote referral letters for diagnoses.
Section 21: Witch-Finding Activities and Cleansing Rituals
Wendroff: To give you an idea of how significant this was, there had been a hiatus in major witch-finding activities. There was a great deal of unresolved belief in witchcraft and sorcery. I provided this figure with a registered book at the time, in which his secretaries listed the names of people referred for witchcraft cleansing. Often, a whole village, sometimes 12 or more people, would come under one referral letter to be cleansed of supposed witchcraft.
I’m not exaggerating. I can send you photocopies. During the first full year, this prominent figure was back in the office; he registered 25,000 clients using my register book. There were thousands of letters. As I mentioned, one letter might cover 15 to 20 people, indicating the high demand for these cleansing rituals.
Section 22: Ongoing Beliefs and Global Perspective
Wendroff: I finished my research there but returned briefly in 2006. From what I can ascertain, the issue has only increased. The anthropological and socio-psychological rationale for witchcraft beliefs tends to stem from social differentiation, stratification, and jealousy — particularly among those who have less toward those who have more. Given the economic and social changes and political and economic difficulties in places like Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world, these beliefs persist and even escalate. The problem is not isolated to Malawi; many countries in the region and around the world face similar issues.
It appears that belief in witchcraft is only growing among the unenlightened, who attribute their troubles to random causation. My long-term research assistant, whom I spoke to about a week ago, mentioned a resurgence of witchcraft beliefs. He is located at the famous mission station in Northern Malawi, where I initially conducted my research.
Section 23: Comparative Analysis with the United States
Wendroff: As we know, there are numerous reports and stories about this issue. I have 5,479 news articles on the subject, many detailing murders. It’s a serious problem and virtually intractable. If we can see irrational beliefs here in the United States with figures like Donald Trump, you can imagine what we’re dealing with globally. I could elaborate further, but I don’t want to delve into politics. Nonetheless, it’s a major problem.
Discussion
This interview with Dr. Arnie Wendroff provides a comprehensive examination of the interplay between Christianity and traditional beliefs in Malawi, particularly within the educational system. Dr. Wendroff highlights the challenges of integrating religious teachings with scientific education, noting the pervasive belief in witchcraft and sorcery among Malawian communities. He distinguishes between witchcraft—defined anthropologically as an inherent personal power to cause harm—and sorcery, which involves the deliberate use of objects and rituals to inflict harm.
Dr. Wendroff discusses the role of witchfinders in mediating accusations of sorcery, often absolving alleged sorcerers by attributing harm to malfunctioning protective charms created by third parties. This process reflects the intricate social dynamics and economic factors that sustain supernatural beliefs in Malawi. The persistence and escalation of witchcraft beliefs are closely tied to socio-economic disparities, social differentiation, and political instability, which Dr. Wendroff identifies as key drivers behind the resilience of these practices despite modernization efforts.
Furthermore, Dr. Wendroff’s insights into the historical and cultural context of Malawi reveal how traditional beliefs are intertwined with contemporary societal challenges. His research underscores the importance of understanding local terminologies and practices to effectively engage with and address the issues related to witchcraft and sorcery. Future research may explore the impact of globalization on these beliefs, the effectiveness of interventions by witchfinders, and comparative studies across different cultural settings to better understand the universal and unique aspects of supernatural beliefs.
Methods
The author conducted an in-depth, semi-structured interview with Dr. Arnie Wendroff, an anthropologist with extensive fieldwork experience in Malawi. The interview was held either online or in person, depending on logistical feasibility, and was recorded with the consent of Dr. Wendroff. Following the interview, the conversation was transcribed verbatim to ensure an accurate representation of Dr. Wendroff’s insights and experiences. The transcript was then meticulously edited for clarity and conciseness, preserving the original nuances and depth of the discussion. This methodological approach facilitated a thorough exploration of Dr. Wendroff’s research on witchcraft and sorcery, providing valuable qualitative data for analysis.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937). Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1). January 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 8). Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1). In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (January 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Arnie Wendroff on Sorcery Accusations in Malawi (1) [Internet]. 2025 Jan;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/wendroff-1
Note on Formatting
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: December 8, 2024 Accepted: N/A Published: January 8, 2025
Abstract
Jack Ravenhill first became involved with Conatus News during his doctoral studies in Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham. Over time, Ravenhill contributed articles on topics spanning industrial relations, secular values, and cultural transformations in the UK from the 1970s onward. Following his PhD, he navigated the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and ultimately secured an analyst position at Ecctis (formerly UK NARIC). This interview explores Ravenhill’s perspectives on academia, class-based society in Britain, contemporary secular politics, and the legacy of Conatus News.
Keywords: cultural studies, industrial relations, Conatus News, secular politics, UK class structure, British PhD journey, post-COVID academic job market
Introduction
Jack Ravenhill joined Conatus News at a pivotal moment in his academic career, contributing early articles that combined scholarly rigor with commentary on contemporary cultural and political issues. As the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the academic and professional landscapes, Ravenhill navigated significant changes—from completing his doctorate to finding work in a shifting employment environment. The following interview sheds light on his trajectory, reflections on British society, and the broader influence of secular discourse within the UK.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Jack Ravenhill
Section 1: Introduction and Early Involvement
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Jack Ravenhill. Hello, how are you?
Jack Ravenhill: I’m very well, thank you. Thanks very much for this opportunity, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me in the post-Conatus News Café. What did you gain from your time with Conatus News, and how did you get involved?
Ravenhill: Yeah, good questions. I got involved in the second or third year of my PhD. I was studying in Birmingham then, pursuing a PhD in Cultural Studies. As far as I remember, Benjamin David reached out to me. He mentioned that he was launching a new publication and asked if I wanted to contribute a few articles.
I was happy to agree. My memory is a little fuzzy about what I gained from the experience—it’s been nearly a decade—but it was my first time being published. That was a significant milestone and a big deal for me then.
Section 2: Themes of Writing
Jacobsen: Yeah, I can imagine. So, what kinds of themes were you writing about then?
Ravenhill: I was exploring various topics. One article I wrote connected to my research interests, particularly industrial relations in the UK and how they intersected with secular values, British culture, and societal shifts from the 1970s onwards.
I recall writing about a significant strike at a garment factory in the north of England. Most of the workers involved were women of Southeast Asian descent. It was an important moment in UK industrial relations history.
Another article delved into different liberal approaches to multiculturalism, focusing on the role of free speech and secularism within that framework. These are broad summaries, as it’s been almost a decade, and the details escape me.
Section 3: Transition and the Pandemic
Jacobsen: That’s fascinating. After your time with Conatus News, where did your journey take you? Or were you working on other projects simultaneously?
Ravenhill: After Conatus News, my studies became the main focus. I was deep into completing my thesis, keeping me busy for about two years. Then, just as I was preparing for my Viva Voce, the pandemic hit.
It was a surreal time. Everything shut down, but I was fortunate to defend my thesis and pass just before the first lockdown in the UK. Afterward, I spent six to nine months at home applying for jobs during the pandemic.
Eventually, I secured an analyst position at Ecctis, formerly known as UK NARIC. The organization specializes in processing visa applications and providing qualification equivalency certifications—a role I found both challenging and rewarding.
Since we left, it has changed to what is now called Ecctis, but we still do similar work. I work in the linguistics team there, where we benchmark language qualifications. That’s where I am today.
Section 4: Advice for PhD Students
Jacobsen: What is your advice for people in picking a PhD topic, choosing a doctoral thesis topic, and going through the slog of a PhD up to the defence? This is a huge commitment with relatively high attrition rates. People can only save time and money if they are properly prepared for it.
Ravenhill: Absolutely. It is a really big commitment. To anyone considering a PhD: be sure this is what you want to do. As you said, the attrition rates are very high.
I struggled a bit with mine in the second year. The first year was quite enjoyable, however. We had to do a postgraduate course in research methods, which I enjoyed. After that, it was just the literature review phase, which allowed us to read many interesting books and indulge our interests in the library. But it became tricky when it came time to pull it all together, especially when trying to identify your niche.
I advise people to consider what they want to do after the PhD. If there is a particular area you would like to pursue, think about how your topic aligns with that. Academia is very competitive and requires much work. If academia is the goal, it is worth noting that it varies from country to country. Here in the UK, academic positions are highly sought after. Contracts can be temporary, and you might be expected to travel across the country for a short-term position.
Research is the main attraction for most people, and it is incredibly rewarding, but there are sacrifices. Be sure it is something you truly want to commit to.
Section 5: British Quirks and Culture
Jacobsen: Why do so many British places have weird names pronounced differently than spelled?
Ravenhill: It’s our gift to the world. We like to confuse people who need to become more familiar with them.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the most British thing you’ve ever done?
Ravenhill: Quite a few things. My partner and I often have discussions about whether it’s “scone” or “scone,” “vase” or “vase.” We enjoy tea served in fine bone china and going on picnics. In many ways, we are quite stereotypically English.
Jacobsen: Which part of the world is surprisingly or characteristically British outside the United Kingdom? There is so much overlap in sounds, slang, behaviours, customs, and looks.
Ravenhill: That’s a good question. If I had to guess, I’d probably say some of the former parts of the British Empire. Some enclaves feel like a time capsule. I’ve met people from South Africa who remind me of my grandparents regarding speech and mannerisms. However, those places have evolved in many ways, too.
Section 6: Class in Britain
Jacobsen: There’s a stereotype about the Brits being a class-based society, while India is often described as caste-based. Do you think Britain is still class-based?
Ravenhill: I think so, yes. Unfortunately, class divisions have grown over time. Culturally, we’re more ambiguous than before. It used to be different from it, where if you came from a wealthier background, you would speak in received pronunciation (RP) and listen to classical music. Cultural tastes have diversified over the years.
However, deep economic barriers remain. While cultural class markers may have faded, the economic divides remain intact.
Section 7: Brexit and Its Aftermath
Jacobsen: What do you think Brexit did to British society?
Ravenhill: The media has framed it as something that divided British society, but in my opinion, that divide was already there. There was a significant economic shift in Britain during the late 1970s and 1980s. The economic model that had been in place since the end of the Second World War, based on heavy industry and Keynesian state intervention, shifted to a services-based economy.
This change caused much economic power to pivot toward London and away from regions like the North of England and Wales. That demographic and economic change is the broader context behind Brexit.
It’s also an issue that has divided political parties for decades before 2016. David Cameron thought he could emulate Harold Wilson by holding a referendum to settle a dispute within his party, but it backfired spectacularly.
Section 8: Secular Movements and Conatus News
Jacobsen: Conatus News rose during the peak of New Atheism. Terms like “firebrand atheism” and “militant atheism” emerged as overlapping but distinct descriptors of phenomena within secular communities at the time. These movements were primarily associated with North American figures like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, as well as internationalists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the other side of the pond.
Cultural movements like these provided the foundation for publications like Conatus News. However, since the late 2010s and moving into the mid-2020s, there has been a decline—not quite an evaporation but a dissolution—of many of these movements. Smaller groups, such as Atheism Plus and New Humanism, also emerged. Some of these names evoke thoughts of rebranding, like “new humanism” or phrases reminiscent of revolutionary fronts.
Or no, the People’s Front of Judea, the Judean People’s Front—something along those lines. These are characteristic of secular movements, where we often see fragmentation and ideological splits. There is a stereotype that secularists are like herding cats, and I think that is an accurate self-reflection as well as an accurate external observation.
With Conatus News being a product of a particular personality and a community primarily based in the United Kingdom, how do you think secular politics is evolving?
In Canada, some lament the very small size of the humanist community. Major organizations like the Centre for Inquiry Canada and Humanist Canada only have slightly over a thousand memberships, assuming those numbers are still active as I checked a few years ago.
In contrast, organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association have tens of thousands of members in the United States. Additionally, there are large student organizations like the Secular Student Alliance and lobbying groups like the Secular Coalition for America. These organizations boast extensive resources, significant lobbying efforts, and impactful legal work.
Yet, paradoxically, Canadian society appears more humanistic than American society in many ways. As a culture, Canada has already embraced humanistic principles in its laws, policies, interpersonal relations, and professional environments. This diminishes the need for extensive legal teams, litigation, or large-scale communities to promote these values. When a society already aligns with humanistic values—whether its members are religious or not—there may be less of a push to create distinct advocacy organizations.
Do you think the decline in the prominence of atheist movements signals not their failure but their success in achieving key goals, such as normalizing non-religiosity and integrating it into everyday life?
Ravenhill: That’s a great question. In some ways, that perspective is certainly true. Richard Dawkins’ writing was a significant milestone in normalizing nonreligious viewpoints. Christopher Hitchens was also very popular in the UK and had a substantial cultural impact.
The debate about secularism and the role of religion in UK society now seems to be intertwined with broader political discussions, such as the future of the House of Lords. There has been considerable talk about reforming the House of Lords, particularly within Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. However, no one seems entirely sure what should be done with it.
The House of Lords’ hereditary aspect has evolved over time, and it is now more focused on a system where peers are nominated. This shift reflects broader changes in how secular and democratic principles interact with longstanding traditions in British governance.
It seems that reformists would prefer something resembling a confessionalist system, where there is some proportional representation based on religion and ethnicity in the House of Lords. That is not necessarily favourable. Given the constant demographic shifts, putting ethno-religious identity at the forefront seems counterproductive. As a liberal, politics should be grounded more in civic principles rather than ethno-religious considerations.
These debates illustrate how the role of religion continues to seep back into British society—if it ever truly left. I don’t think it did.
Another area where religion still plays a significant role is in discussions around the universality of the law. There’s this older conception of isonomy, where the law is blind and applied equally to everyone, irrespective of religious or family background. However, more postmodernist and relativistic theories propose that this approach is oppressive and suggest that the law should adapt to consider religious and cultural differences.
This is a contentious issue because it can lead to varying severity in the punishment of crimes based on religious or ethnic backgrounds. Such practices risk fostering resentment as they challenge the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Section 9: Assisted Dying and Ethical Debates
Ravenhill (continuing): On another note, what about issues outside of the House of Lords? For example, the euthanasia movement and the push to legalize physician-assisted care for making the most profound decisions about one’s life.
The Assisted Dying Bill passed here in the UK, but it took considerable time to gain traction. Surveys indicate a gap between societal attitudes and the positions of elected representatives. Society has generally been more in favour of the bill than politicians have. Historically, bishops in the House of Lords were strongly opposed to such legislation.
The bill has passed, but as we discussed earlier, it is much more restrained than laws in places like Switzerland or Canada. Whether subsequent legislation will build on this remains to be seen. I hope so, as I see it as an essential step forward.
This milestone has been compared to the legalization of abortion in its significance. The debate around assisted dying also echoed abortion debates, with opponents arguing that it would divert resources away from palliative care. Advocates, however, stressed the importance of giving individuals autonomy over their end-of-life decisions. Ultimately, the bill went through, marking a significant moment for British society.
The comparison to abortion is apt—it’s essentially self-selected adult abortion. It’s also about decoupling certain taboos. In North America, particularly in the United States, there’s often scare rhetoric around issues like abortion and physician-assisted death. Terms like “creating a culture of death” are frequently employed to stoke fear and opposition.
The “culture of death” argument is a significant pillar among the counterpositions to euthanasia bills. However, the UK does not emphasize it as much. The objections you mentioned, such as concerns about diverting resources, are much more tangible and reasonable. The idea is that funds might be better allocated to something more valuable in terms of utility for taxpayers in medical contexts.
When you talk about a “culture of death,” it seems very abstract and not directly related to the existential reality of individuals in extreme pain. These are people who do not want to continue living, often in the late stages of illness, where a decision might need to be made for them due to severe health conditions.
Section 10: Objections and Future Path
Jacobsen: What other objections, besides the economic argument, tend to arise?
Ravenhill: There has been some concern—though it is not framed as a “culture of death” here—that individuals with chronic conditions could feel pressured to end their lives. Given the UK’s largely public healthcare system, detractors fear such individuals might be seen as a drain on resources, potentially facing subtle coercion to opt for assisted dying.
However, the legislation includes numerous checks and balances to mitigate such risks. Another significant debate centred on where the line should be drawn. For instance, questions arose about whether individuals with mental illnesses or severe depression should qualify for assisted dying. While the current bill does not address these issues, other countries have considered cases where mental illness or long-term depression might qualify for euthanasia under specific circumstances.
Section 11: Reflections and Concluding Thoughts
Jacobsen: What about your next steps? Reflecting on your time with Conatus News, what was the main benefit of your current work? And what are you hoping to achieve moving forward?
Ravenhill: The main benefits of Conatus News were numerous. I had the opportunity to meet fascinating people, engage in thought-provoking debates, and read incredible articles. That exposure was invaluable. Additionally, encountering opinions that differed significantly from mine was an enriching experience.
I was still studying at the time, so having my work published was immensely helpful. Publications are essentially the currency by which you are judged in academia, so that milestone was very beneficial. I am interested in reconnecting with some of the other writers from Conatus News.
I am researching the next steps with an academic at the University of Buenos Aires. This continues my work during my PhD, focusing on industrial relations legislation. However, we are approaching it from a linguistics and cultural studies perspective. The research involves dissecting the language of the legislation, analyzing how it has evolved, and situating it within the political economy in which the legislation was enacted. That is my primary focus at the moment.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for catching up. It’s always a pleasure to chat.
Ravenhill: Take care, and let’s stay in touch.
Discussion
This interview with Jack Ravenhill highlights key aspects of the academic journey—selecting a PhD topic, navigating the thesis phase, and transitioning into a postdoctoral career. It also delves into British cultural nuances, discussing class, Brexit, and secular politics. Future inquiries may compare how these issues unfold in other contexts or examine the long-term impact of platforms like Conatus News on public discourse.
Methods
The author conducted an online or in-person interview with the respondent, recorded and transcribed the conversation, and subsequently edited the transcript for clarity and concision.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Post-Conatus News Meander 5: Jack Ravenhill:
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, January 8). Post-Conatus News Meander 5: Jack Ravenhill. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 5: Jack Ravenhill. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
This layout follows an adapted Nature research-article structure, tailored for an interview format. Instead of Methods, Results, and Discussion, we present Interview transcripts and a concluding Discussion. This design helps maintain scholarly rigor while accommodating narrative content.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/01
Aisha Becker-Burrowes(She/Her) is a social entrepreneur and impact consultant working at the intersections of media, communications and social change, particularly emphasizing racial equity and gender justice. She founded Studio Watts, a social impact agency and creative collective of radical communicators, mission-driven storytellers and purpose-fueled creatives of colour. She is also the cofounder and co-executive director of FEMINIST, the largest women-owned social-first digital platform dedicated to women, girls, and gender-expansive people with a global audience of over 6M+.
As a purpose-fueled creative with previous experience at some of the largest media companies today, including Netflix, ViacomCBS and ESSENCE Magazine, Aisha’s work empowers audiences to create change and inspire action around pressing social issues. Through strategic partnerships, brand strategy, digital media and communications, Aisha helps bridge the gap between brands, creators, change-makers, academics, and nonprofits.
Armed with a powerful blend of experience and knowledge, Aisha holds a master’s degree in Media, Culture, and Communications from New York University, where she studied the power of social media in fueling global movements and its impact on visual culture. This academic foundation is the bedrock of her work, enabling her to navigate the ever-evolving landscape through a formidable combination of hands-on experience and educational expertise.
Aisha also serves on the advisory board of RespectAbility, a disability-led nonprofit striving for systemic change across industries.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Aisha Becker-Burrowes from FEMINIST. Thank you to Martha Dimitratou for the connection. What has been the FEMINIST connection and involvement with Art, Care, and Action in New York City?
Becker-Burrowes: Yes, we have built deep relationships with all of the organizers. We have developed relationships with Plan C, Autumn Breon, the UN Foundation, and Amnesty International. We have been collaborating and ideating how to come together for UNDA and UNGA, specifically around advancing rights—particularly at these global intersections. We are working to create space during UNDA to discuss these issues but also organize around the intersections of art, care, and taking action.
Part of this came from Autumn Breon, an artist with whom we have collaborated extensively on several initiatives. She started the vision around the “Care-House,” centred around her incredible Care-Van—I am sure everyone has told you about it. Essentially, the thesis is: What would care to look like in the reproductive justice space, particularly for Black women and women of colour? She created a vending machine where women, or anyone, can access hair care products for free.
She posed the question, initially focused on Black women but later expanded: What would care look like for you? This could include everything from edge control products to free condoms to abortion pills. We took this idea and expanded on it. In addition to the panels and activations, we’ll also have things like Reiki and dance as forms of care. It’s about organizing around the intersection of holding space for art, care, and taking action, particularly during the UNGA.
Jacobsen: I’m approaching this as a Canadian foreigner to the United States. One thing, though—looking at some data a while ago, I forgot the exact numbers.
African American women are typically among the most affected, if not the most affected, by any restriction on abortion access, particularly access to safe abortion. How does this play out on both an individual and community level when these rights are restricted, and policies, fake abortion clinics, and other barriers stop access? What’s the driving force behind FEMINIST and other organizations getting involved in abortion activism?
Becker-Burrowes: Yes, I don’t know the exact statistics either, but I do know that today, in the United States, at least 1 in 3 women are living in states with an abortion ban, often with no exceptions.
What the research shows is that this has a particularly stark impact on Black women and women of colour for a whole host of reasons. One is the Black maternal and child health crisis, the effect of medical racism that we’re seeing embedded both institutionally and systemically, and also the actual economic tolls. So, if you’re a woman of colour living in Louisiana, for example—a state with an abortion ban—do you have the time, resources, and funds, if you’re a working-class Black woman, to travel to a different state to receive either abortion care or the care you need? Yes, we’re seeing a profound impact on Black women and women of colour in the United States, especially in states with strict abortion bans.
This has been true throughout history. One of the conversations we plan to have at this event is a panel followed by a screening of Bone Black: Midwest Sports of the South, directed by Amadi and Akaya. The film is meant to explore and examine the history and role of Black midwives in the South. But beyond that, we’re seeing this influx of a reproductive justice movement. It’s essential to recognize that the term reproductive justice was coined by a group of Black women, particularly Loretta Ross, one of the cofounders of SisterSong. They created the movement for reproductive justice that we’re seeing a resurgence of today.
So, part of the conversation is also making space to name and credit the folks leading this movement, which we unfortunately have to fight against today. It’s a long way to answer it, but I won’t avoid the question.
Jacobsen: Did any of these founders—of terms or movements, locally or otherwise—predict the style of backlash that American women have experienced acutely since the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
Becker-Burrowes: That’s a great question.
The short answer is yes. I’m unsure if I can point to anything specific other than looking at the history and some of our feminist faves—our real feminist icons. The short answer is yes when you look back at their archives, letter exchanges, or even some of the quotes we frequently reiterate.
One example is I was reading about Fannie Lou Hamer, who was organizing in the 1960s to turn out the vote in the Civil Rights Movement. Much of her work and organizing was around voting rights and restrictions. She’s famous for saying, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.”
But this comes from the fact that she was fighting for voting rights. Also, she—let me see if I’ve got this right—had a hysterectomy performed on her without her consent while undergoing surgery in the South. This happened frequently. There was a name and a term for it—I could probably find it for you—but it happened so often.
So, reflecting on that and the idea of being “sick and tired of being sick and tired,” this fight is still happening. It’s a fight in the U.S., a fight about voting. Still, it’s also linked to the struggle for reproductive justice and the particular impact it has—and continues to have—on Black women. That example from Fannie Lou Hamer is a poignant illustration.
Jacobsen: Are there distinctions in the experience of Black women in the United States in urban settings versus rural settings when it comes to abortion access?
Becker-Burrowes: Yes.
And what I do know is that I live in New York City, and I also live with a disability. I haven’t gone through the process of trying for children yet, but I’m terrified because I know a little too much about the statistics and what it means for Black women. While I live in a state that doesn’t have abortion restrictions, and I’m in New York City, there are still communities like the Bronx, or even where I live in Harlem, where the maternal mortality rate for Black women is ten times the national average.
Even though we theoretically have access to care since New York is not a restricted state, there’s still a huge fight to get primary reproductive care and access. There are apparent differences across racial lines.
Jacobsen: What about generational differences in these experiences? What about cohort effects or generational differences in this experience? To make it more concrete, Roe v. Wade was in place for about half a century, providing national stability and safe access to a fundamental human right for women who wanted it. But before that, and now after it, we have periods without it, totalling more than a lifetime for many women.
You have younger generations who never had it as an assumption and older generations who didn’t have it but then did it for a time before losing it again. Do you incorporate the feedback from women across these generations, whether in workshops or lectures, to better understand their experiences in different states?
Becker-Burrowes: Yes. While our primary audience is predominantly online and skewing younger, we consider ourselves intersectional, intergenerational, and international. That intergenerational aspect is crucial because there’s so much we can learn from previous generations. Unfortunately, we’re fighting the same fight again—essentially fighting for Roe again, for primary access to reproductive care.
We’ve had many conversations with figures like Gloria Steinem and Heather Booth. Heather Booth, one of the founders of the Jane Collective, started helping women access safe abortions in the 1970s through an underground network. Learning from strategies like that has been vital for us.
Sometimes, these intergenerational lessons happen organically at our events. For instance, I was on a panel with Loretta Ross, and she was in the audience. She stopped us to add more context from her experiences and share with the audience. This happens frequently at our events because there’s a lot we need to learn from holding space for the generation before us and those even before that.
I understand if they’re not dealing with it. We’re undergoing a shift at the same time.
Jacobsen: When looking at things state by state, how can we translate the excitement of an annual event or the participation of various organizations and networking around something like the UNGA into state-by-state action when federally it’s gone?
For instance, if abortion is illegal in one state, how can we leverage a neighbouring state with different laws to say, “Hey, you can come here and exercise your human rights legally”?
Becker-Burrowes: There are a couple of ways to answer this. I’m thinking about how these international events, like the UNGA, bring people worldwide into one space, right? It creates an opportunity to convene various voices and perspectives, not just to listen to programming and panels but to strategize together.
For context, the way we hold many of our events and panel discussions at FEMINIST is more “salon-style.” It’s not just a panel of experts talking to a crowd. We can bring many different people and perspectives into the conversation. We create much space for audience dialogue and feedback. That’s one way to gather diverse perspectives from people from other states or countries—to strategize, share tips, and learn what’s working in their areas. Then, we can apply that energy to our local and national work.
Additionally, organizations like Plan C provide resources and abortion pills for abortion care.
Jacobsen: So, even if you’re in a state with restrictions, you can still access this kind of care, at least in the U.S. There are challenges around messaging. Martha and I talked about this a bit.
Some people in the U.S. focus on the First Amendment, free speech, and freedom of expression. They believe in, practice, and value it for themselves and others. There’s no issue with that.
But then, others claim to believe in free speech for themselves but not for others—not in what they say but how they act. They may have significant financial backing, influence, and political power, and they censor or silence others. What’s been your experience with this latter group in your activist work through Feminists or Feminists as an organization?
A second group of people talk about free speech and the First Amendment, saying they believe in it. I believe they believe they believe in it. But when it comes to what they do, they censor other people. They silence or shadow-ban their accounts, primarily if those people advocate for left-wing activist causes. So, in terms of what they do, it’s very different from what they say. This group is much different from the first one.
As far as I know and have experienced, this second group needs to be revised. Martha and I discussed this yesterday. What’s been your or FEMINIST’s experience with dealing with that second group?
Becker-Burrowes: Again, I can answer the second part if you wait. But in particular, with FEMINIST, with the handle that’s quite literally @feminist, and our domain having “feminist” in it, we receive a lot of targeted attacks, especially when fighting for causes like reproductive justice, climate change, and primary health care—which are often considered “more progressive” causes due to the feminist ethos. The question is, how do we deal with it?
Jacobsen: Also, considering what you’ve experienced, could you document the problems people bring to your door to advocate for these issues?
Becker-Burrowes: Yes, so many. So many different perspectives or people come into the feminist movement or space. I want to answer this question correctly.
We’ve experienced much censorship, particularly with Meta. We’ve jumped into the fight for reproductive justice, and anytime you mention something—even if you spell out “abortion” properly—it automatically gets flagged, censored, and not pushed through specific algorithms. This means it’s only seen by a small group of followers. In contrast, our reach would usually be much more significant on other topics we discuss.
That’s one of the major issues we’ve seen and struggled with. It has impacted people’s ability to receive care or know where to find care. Much of the care in the reproductive space happens through word-of-mouth. Suppose you’re someone trying to make a decision around abortion or find abortion care. In that case, the first person you turn to is often a friend or family member. So, this kind of censorship can impact people’s access to care or even just the information they need to make decisions.
Jacobsen: What are some of the highlights feminists bring to this event regarding workshops, presentations, etc? What are you most looking forward to?
Becker-Burrowes: I’m excited about the Survivor Love Letter workshop. I’m also particularly excited about our conversation and panel discussion on exposing the harmful impact that systemic racism has on birth workers, especially Black birth workers. We’ll be discussing the historical erasure of Black doulas and midwives, and we’re also going to showcase the film Bone Black: Midwest by Amadi and Akaya. The film is beautifully done and very artful. The filmmaker did an incredible job.
I’m also excited to bring Chanel, the founder and CEO of Ancient Song, and Attia, the founder and CEO of Womanly Magazine and Women of Color Women’s Health Magazine, into the conversation. I’ll be moderating the panel.
Jacobsen: How do you feel about moderating that panel and contributing to the overall event?
Becker-Burrowes: I’m excited! I love moderating and holding space for conversations. Curating discussions is a form of active care and action. I’ve built good relationships with all the panellists, so it will be a fun and engaging conversation.
Jacobsen: Which organizations have been your biggest allies or, to use less feminist terminology, your closest associates or collaborators?
Becker-Burrowes: There are so many to name! Plan C has been incredible, Women on Web, and… Censored. I don’t know who else at the moment!
I’m also trying to think about gender, not in terms of this specific context, but gender in general. Right? That’s been another incredible factor in our partnerships. Regarding reproductive justice, so many organizations are leading the movement right now in the United States. Regenerative Freedom for All has been one of our key partners.
We also work with many abortion funds. So, yes, those are just a few examples. But yes, there’s a lot of work we’re partnering on.
Jacobsen: On a personal note, what was your first moment of, let’s call it, awakening—not necessarily to injustices, but to areas where society could improve in achieving its advocated ideals? Whether on an individual level or just looking at the world around you while living in the United States?
I can give a personal example. I grew up in an alcoholic home and a divorced family. I’ve been in no-contact with my father for about nine years now, after a significant police event, which was the worst of them. I was always a very sensitive kid. I cried a lot during those tumultuous and turbulent times of my youth. At that point, I realized I wasn’t necessarily “gender normal” in terms of social expectations around emotions and expressing them. It wasn’t perfect circumstance, but it was just how I was.
Unfortunately, given the circumstances, it was a less-than-positive expression given the circumstances but a healthy response within it. What was it for you?
Becker-Burrowes: Oh, great. Thanks for sharing. I was raised biracial—my mother is white, and my father is Black. My father is Afro-Caribbean, and I grew up strongly connected to Rastafarianism. My father is also a Rasta, which is part of the Black liberation ideology and theology in many ways—other than just growing older and realizing it.
For me, it started young. My parents were musicians and taught me my history, specifically my Black history, through music. I remember hearing much music playing through our speakers at home. Early on, they felt the limits of what I was receiving in my formal education—especially the lack of my history.
I remember being in the car, and my parents would play Bob Marley’s Redemption Song. They would go over the lyrics with me to teach me about the history of slavery. The Redemption Song is essentially about the transatlantic slave trade. So, one particular moment did not set it off for me. It was more embedded in who I was—to observe the world, notice the injustices, and recognize the gaps in my education.
I was taught to challenge what I was taught in school, think critically, and always know that there’s another side to any narrative. That was just embedded in my upbringing. Navigating the world as a biracial, lighter-skinned person also contributed. I’d be with my father one day, observing how he had to navigate the world as a Black man, and then with mywhite mother the next day, noticing the stark differences. That duality shaped my awareness early on.
I didn’t just navigate the world as a woman and a white person, and then with my father, who was both Black and male with dreads and a Rasta. I was always an observer, witnessing injustice and the inequities in people’s lived experiences and how they are viewed. This was an essential part of my upbringing.
I’m also a type 1 diabetic and live with a disability diagnosed in 5th grade. I’ve always wanted to do something about inequity. It wasn’t necessarily that I wanted to be in the streets as an activist—though I did that in my remaining years—but more so that I wanted to raise awareness through different mediums, whether through film, media, or music. Music has always been my vehicle for understanding the world. I knew that would always be my North Star: to educate people about various issues through media.
Jacobsen: Aisha, are there any final notes or points that should be publicized about feminism and its participation in this event? This interview will be published after the event, so from that perspective: what’s helpful to share?
Becker-Burrowes: I’m considering reiterating the importance of building and living global solidarity, especially around reproductive rights. Yes, we live in the United States, but this fight is unfortunately happening everywhere. It has a trickle-down effect—or, hopefully, it could also help improve social justice in other places.
That’s why I’m excited we’re coming together during the UNGA. I’m excited about the many different partners we’ve involved. We’re bringing so many other topics, conversations, and people to the table to pause and reflect on the state of reproductive rights globally.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Aisha, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Becker-Burrowes: Thank you. I had fun. We made it!
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/30
Martha Dimitratou (she/her), MFA, is the Digital Strategist at Women on Web and PLAN C Pills. She also works in the sexual and reproductive health and rights space in the US and internationally with organizations such as Hesperian Health Guides, The NWHN, and the Period Pills project. She’s active in the digital rights movement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: On September 20, the Art, Care, & Action: Creating the Future of Reproductive Rights Around the Globe event will be presented at NeueHouse Madison Square in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Why this topic? Why this city? Why the UNGA?
Martha Dimitratou: We’ve been working together collaboratively for a long time. We’ve created a coalition of organizations called the Repro Uncensored. One of the goals of this coalition, which is co-chaired by Amnesty International, is to advocate for the sharing of accurate healthcare and reproductive health information, particularly in the online and digital space.
We’re working to ensure the information shared is accurate, especially when fighting misinformation from big tech companies. We’re also focused on ensuring that people on the ground, whether in small grassroots communities or attending more significant events, like those on the sidelines of the UNGA, have access to the information they need to make decisions about their health, bodies, and futures.
Under this initiative, we’ve been collaborating with the Repro Uncensored and other organizations to find ways to address information suppression. One of our approaches is organizing events. These events not only help counter misinformation but also celebrate the progress we’ve made in reproductive health.
Another goal with Repro Uncensored is to highlight and value the creative process, ensuring we don’t operate within an organizational echo chamber. We want the broader public to have access to the content and information. This is why we collaborate with creatives — these projects are essential to us.
Next week is International Safe Abortion Day, and we thought it would be a fitting opportunity to engage with the U.N. General Assembly. We also organized a project at last year’s UNGA, when we first discussed the Repro Uncensored as a coalition. We officially launched the Commission on the Status of Women in March at the U.N. We have a history with the UNGA.
Additionally, this event is part of a larger project. Two days after this event, I’m flying to Brussels, where we’re hosting another event during an abortion-related conference called FIAPAC. This will occur at a museum and include performances, workshops, and public engagements to make reproductive health accessible to everyone.
Accurate information is crucial because misinformation can lead to severe consequences, like complications from false claims about healthcare options. It also helps to destigmatize abortion care. We aim to bring these topics to mainstream and popular culture.
For all these reasons — International Safe Abortion Day, the UNGA, our mission with the Repro Uncensored and these organizations, and our commitment to working with artists — we decided to organize this event.
There you go. That’s why we’re doing this.
Jacobsen: The interview will be published afterward. But what is the importance of making sure all these analytics, research, and data are accessible to people who don’t have the expertise, education, time, or even the interest or energy to spend on gathering precise information about these topics?
Dimitratou: Yes, there’s much misinformation. I will only take a little of your time. Still, organizations like Plan C and Women on the Web, which have around 6 million followers, constantly have their content taken down. For instance, as of this month, approximately 80 to 85% of young people in West Africa, based on the latest data, get their preventive health information through TikTok. Young people must have access to accurate information.
Many organizations, including Plan C with their Guide to Pills and Women on the Web, are conducting extensive research. Still, we must find creative ways to make this accessible to younger audiences. They need to understand their options and know where to find accurate healthcare resources. This is especially important now, with the upcoming elections in the U.S. Many people don’t realize that abortion pills are still accessible in certain states, which is what Plan C works on — providing guides on how to access these options, even in highly restrictive contexts. Women on the Web also offers essential services in these areas. With body autonomy and reproductive health at the forefront of political debates, particularly in the U.S. but also globally, it’s more critical than ever to have these discussions. I should also mention Amnesty International, with whom we’re leading a workshop in Portugal in a few weeks, focused on this very issue of research and information. They’re doing an excellent job collecting examples of information suppression and creating a database. It’s not just organizations facing these challenges; individuals, influencers, and small communities also see their accounts taken down, and this suppression is widespread. So, yes, having accurate information and knowing your options is more important than ever.
Jacobsen: Will there be simultaneous presentations, online or in other cities besides New York?
Dimitratou: Yes, we have projects in Pompeii and Brussels at the Musée de la Haute, a fantastic museum that has been incredibly supportive, just two days after the New York event. We’re also working with our colleagues in Senegal, with whom we did a project last month. They’re hosting a series of screenings and projections on reproductive health alongside their major annual event in November. Additionally, we’re planning to have more projections, not only in Europe but also in Berlin, hopefully by Monday. I know I’m a bit all over the place with this. Still, the goal is not only to bring this to New York but also to use the opportunity of the General Assembly to connect with these incredible organizations from around the world. We have participants from India and collaborators from various regions.
I’m saying this with frustration and emotion, but attending conferences like these has been challenging for many of our colleagues. For example, we’ve needed help getting our colleagues to New York. They still have their interview tomorrow. It’s been a complicated process. We’ve faced similar issues with our colleagues from the Congo trying to travel to Brussels. This is why it’s so important to raise awareness about these challenges. We hold these conferences worldwide, and while organizations are invested, we must ensure we bring people who usually need seats. Last year, during the UNGA, we supported our colleagues from Profamilia, a Colombian organization. We got them to New York to join us on the panel. Supporting smaller local partners is essential when discussing Repro Uncensored and what we do. I’m still determining if my colleague can make it to New York; I’ll know by tomorrow after their interview. It’s also been challenging for my colleagues to get a visa for Brussels, so we’ll see if they make it. It would be amazing to have more representation from Africa. I know many countries in the Pacific and Asian regions have faced similar difficulties, as have countries in Latin America. It was challenging when we did our project in Senegal, and getting our colleagues from Rio to come to Senegal was costly. So, while discussing a global coalition, practical barriers must be addressed. I’d love to have more of our colleagues join.
Jacobsen: Another aspect to consider is the historical context. You mentioned last year’s UNGA. How does this presentation compare to previous years?
Dimitratou: I’m excited about this year’s event. Last year, we had a panel discussion with Amnesty International, Profamilia, Vitala Global, and others on content suppression and its impact on reproductive health organizations. We had just started thinking about forming a coalition, but it was still early. For context, the first time we seriously considered creating a coalition was during RightsCon, a prominent digital rights conference. It was held online due to COVID, and that’s when we realized how many reproductive health organizations were facing similar issues.
Dimitratou: Seeing how fast we’ve built an actual coalition since last year is impressive. We did a good job presenting the issues to our colleagues on the sidelines of the UNGA, discussing the challenges we were facing, and opening the floor to suggestions. We can improve, but we took their feedback and came together. We’re hosting this event, which is a significant step forward. It’s happening at NeueHouse, which is a big deal for us. For context, we worked with them in Los Angeles, supporting some events during Frieze. That’s when we decided to do something in New York, and for them to trust us and help us set up this event, as well as the one in Brussels, is very humbling. So, yes, there has been much progress — from just presenting the problems to actively working on solutions. It’s been a clear evolution.
Jacobsen: I recently returned from spending about three and a half weeks in Ukraine, staying about 10 kilometres from the Russian border at one point and travelling through various areas, including Kharkiv. The Beijing Declaration openly states that rape is used as a weapon of war. So, with that recent experience in mind and considering your focus on reproductive rights, I’m wondering: how are war contexts where reproductive rights are severely impacted, represented or discussed in your work? And what about the context of safe abortion in situations where it may not be available, especially in cases of rape?
Dimitratou: Yes, that’s a great question. I don’t have all the answers, but I can share some insights. We work closely with an organization called Martika, a Ukrainian group now based in Poland. They do fantastic work supporting war refugees by providing shelter, abortions, and reproductive healthcare. I’m sure there are many more organizations, and it’s an ongoing area of research and conversation. When we presented at the UNGA last year, we continued to support them throughout the year. I can share some exciting examples of their challenges. For instance, they told us they tried advertising their services on platforms like Facebook, only to have their content rejected and completely blocked. Meanwhile, they would receive targeted ads on how they could become escorts in Poland. It’s unbelievable.
We shared this during our presentation to highlight the intersection of reproductive rights and conflict zones. It’s essential to see if more organizations could connect with us and amplify their work. Martika’s experience is a perfect example of what you’re asking about, and I’ll share everything they’ve shared with us. It’s also fascinating to observe how the news cycle works. Ukraine was a primary focus for a while. Still, Martika struggles to fund themselves every month, even though they do such critical work. It’s a great point and a significant issue we’re trying to address by staying engaged with these contexts as much as possible.
Jacobsen: Are any organizations or countries that participated in previous years but need help this year?
Dimitratou: Sorry, I couldn’t hear you. Could you repeat the question?
Jacobsen: Are there any organizations that participated in prior years but need help this year?
Dimitratou: Oh, I still can’t hear you. Are you asking about organizations that participated in previous years but need help this time?
Dimitratou: Some organizations or countries have participated in prior years but can’t this year. I don’t know who precisely. Our event is a side event, and its success depends on decisions made by the United Nations and embassies, particularly regarding visa approvals. It’s often about what the U.N. and embassies allow and how they expedite visa processes, so it’s hard to say which organizations are finding it more challenging to participate this year.
Jacobsen: What will be the special preview by Feminist and Womanly magazine at the Feminist Film Fest?
Dimitratou: Yes, they’ll be screening a film. I can share more information with you — it’s all available on the website. They’re hosting their first film festival in New York, and they’ll be screening Bone Black: Midwives vs. the South. A discussion will follow the screening. So, this is Feminist’s first film screening. Like Repro Uncensored, they operate in the digital space and do many in-person events and projects to unite people. This is one of those initiatives.
Jacobsen: Has this event, from the 18th to the 22nd, ever lasted this long?
Dimitratou: The event itself in New York is only on the 20th. The broader context includes activations in Senegal and Brussels that are happening these days. Also, with the projection in Berlin, it looks like things will continue until the 23rd. So, while we don’t have an open-door event for five days straight, we have a series of activations around the world during this period to raise awareness about safe reproductive health and abortion access. This project has the potential to grow even further. It doesn’t necessarily have to be centrally organized by us at Repro Uncensored and our partners. Seeing local groups take over and activate in their ways would be amazing. But yes, it’s a series of global activations to your question.
Jacobsen: With the event hosted by Feminist, Amnesty USA, Plan C, Repro Uncensored, Universal Access Project, and Women on Web, I noticed that Human Rights Watch isn’t listed. Why aren’t they involved?
Dimitratou: We don’t have any contact with Human Rights Watch, but I’m sure they would be interested. It’s not that they aren’t willing to work with us — we’ve never had a direct connection with them. Hopefully, they’ll be involved in future iterations of this project.
Jacobsen: That’s a good answer. I’ll reach out to Human Rights Watch. Moving on, there’s been much censorship against activists. This disproportionately affects progressive human rights activists, campaigners, and champions. How has censorship been advanced against individuals involved in your collective work this year?
Dimitratou: Yes, censorship is a big issue, and I’d be happy to connect you with my colleague who has done excellent research on this topic. Her report was published a few weeks ago and featured in The New York Times. It’s been pretty intense. Our organizations have their content taken down regularly.
Dimitratou: Our entire account has been removed, and posts are constantly removed. Even more sneakily, we believe we’re being shadowbanned, which means our posts get less traction, especially those about abortion. It happens all the time. For example, Plan C hasn’t been able to run ads on Google for about three years now, while fake clinics unapologetically spend thousands of dollars on Google ads without facing any consequences. This is highly detrimental, especially for small organizations like ours. We spend much of our resources fighting censorship instead of providing people with the necessary information and care.
The appeals process is long and burdensome; meanwhile, as we’ve discussed, it’s harmful. About 80% of people only click on the first result they find on Google. If that result is a fake clinic with inaccurate information, it can cause actual harm. This also perpetuates the stigma around reproductive health and abortion care. When individuals see that content about Plan C has been taken down, they might assume we did something wrong.
I also want to thank influencers who rely on social media for their livelihoods. It’s equally detrimental to them when their content is taken down, or they don’t get the expected traction. Recently, Plan C and Women on Web published research on Bing. It turns out that Bing, which feeds into search engines like DuckDuckGo, filters out accurate reproductive health information when you search for abortion-related terms. Missing the words makes you more likely to get precise results. It’s as if there’s a deliberate filter to suppress correct healthcare information. This highlights how algorithms aren’t neutral — they’re built and directed by humans, and we need to pressure big tech to understand the importance of reproductive health and protect abortion seekers.
Jacobsen: Why do you think big tech companies are turning women’s bodies into political objects?
Dimitratou: I don’t know if they’re doing it on purpose or if it’s due to not caring enough or having too many stakeholders involved. But yes, political factors often decide abortion access, and our content is taken down because it’s viewed as political rather than healthcare. One thing we advocate for is recognizing that abortion access is healthcare. During the COVID pandemic, platforms added a box directing people to the CDC for accurate information whenever inaccurate health information was shared. Similarly, we believe there are authorities on abortion and abortion pills who should be referenced. They should be in charge of content, not people at big tech companies who might not have the necessary background.
It’s also important to stress that big tech’s content moderation policies often don’t reflect individual countries’ legal and political landscapes. Instead, a blanket policy is applied, which typically mirrors the U.S. context. For example, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, international content related to abortion was taken down, even though it didn’t reflect the laws in countries like Argentina, Mexico, and others. This is something we continue to advocate against.
Jacobsen: Reflecting on these movements’ failures, especially in messaging and activism, what areas can we learn and improve?
Dimitratou: Even when the message is 100% correct, it might need to be delivered more timely, depending on the audience. Sometimes, we find ourselves in echo chambers where everyone already agrees on reproductive policy and abortion access as fundamental human rights. It’s the same audience in the same spaces. It’s so important to reach outside of these spaces. Initially, Repro Uncensored tried to do that, and I know many others do, too. But finding new ways to approach new audiences is something we have only sometimes done as well as we could.
Jacobsen: Who are those audiences you still need to reach as well?
Dimitratou: We often interact with people who are already interested in reproductive rights, partly because of how algorithms work — they show us content from people already engaged in this subject. We need to expand beyond those bubbles.
Dimitratou: I often find myself in physical spaces, so I think this event is essential. I regularly have to tell people that they still have options in all 50 states in the U.S. or that Women on the Web can provide care or support, even in places like Malta or Poland, where the abortion laws are draconian. People don’t know this. Sometimes I think, “How could they not know? Everyone talks about this on social media.” But the reality is, there are still many, many people who don’t have access to this information. Bridging the gap between abortion seekers and the communities that need this information, as well as the research and support we can provide, is crucial.
Jacobsen: What about the Amplifier art giveaway? What will that include?
Dimitratou: They’re delivering it tomorrow morning. Amplifier does fantastic work, creating massive-scale campaigns that are incredibly successful and coherent. Their projects seem perfectly coordinated, and I know much hard work goes into them. They’re generously giving away artwork they’ve created with various artists. I’ll know more once I see it. Still, I hope we can collaborate on more projects with them because they’re such an incredible organization.
Jacobsen: What are the care services like nail art and reiki, and who curated them? I come from a more scientific skeptic community. I wouldn’t necessarily consider reiki “care,” but if it helps people, go for it.
Dimitratou: I understand where you’re coming from. I love working with Autumn, however. She’s an exceptional artist and visionary. She’s been a big advocate for the idea that information is care and that abortion is care. We’ve worked with her to create what she calls a “care house.” For example, we collaborated at South by Southwest, where we had panel discussions on subjects we’re passionate about. We also had a space with care services — nail art, massage, and a tooth gem artist. Autumn is fantastic at creating spaces where people feel connected, in solidarity, and do things they love. She emphasizes the importance of joy, community, and finding each other, which aligns with everything we’ve talked about — bridging the gap between abortion seekers and organizations.
Autumn is doing similar work for NeueHouse, and we’re partnering with her on more projects. She’s been on tour, offering care services across the U.S., including San Francisco and Indianapolis. She’s also doing a big performance in Los Angeles as part of a Brazilian arts event with For Freedoms, where she’ll have a “care machine.” Whether we agree on what it means or not, care is fundamental, and I love that she’s creating these spaces. I also appreciate the inclusion of a democratic, informative element where people can check their voter registration status and register to vote.
Jacobsen: That sounds important. I know you’ve done similar projects with civic engagement.
Dimitratou: We did a project at Frieze in Los Angeles with Know Your House, which focused on civic engagement and access to fundamental human rights. We value highlighting these issues alongside our work on reproductive rights.
Jacobsen: What’s happening with the sound meditation and dance workshop by Mujeres El Vento?
Dimitratou: I wish you were here to see their incredible work. Mujeres El Vento are our partners from Rio de Janeiro. We were introduced to them through our reproductive health partners, who have supported them for a long time. They’re doing amazing things, and we’re excited to collaborate.
Dimitratou: They do incredible work empowering women through ancestral dancing, especially in the favelas of Brazil. We worked with them and brought them to Senegal, where we had a unique cultural exchange. They taught us so much about the body, dance, and community. They’ll be doing a workshop in New York with a great percussionist and one of their founders, who is also our mentor. They are incredible musicians and performers, and it’s always a communal and empowering experience.
Jacobsen: One last question: NHMSU, their community and culture director. What makes this individual important for introducing the program on the 20th?
Dimitratou: She’s the program director of NeueHouse, and we worked with her at Frieze New York. She has been highly supportive of our work, generous with the space, and fully behind our vision. We’re honoured to have her kick off the event and talk about the Know Your House initiative and all the work we’ve been doing. NeueHouse is a big supporter of reproductive health, and we’re excited to have them with us on this adventure.
Jacobsen: This is a global event on an international rights topic. What about opposing perspectives? Who are the groups or individuals that oppose these movements and organizations, and what are their objections to events like this? What would be a diplomatic response to those objections?
Dimitratou: That’s a great question, and I don’t have all the answers. We haven’t received much, if any, direct objection to this specific event. Of course, there are people — whether in legislative spaces or big tech — who create barriers to abortion access. But events like this show that we’ve been able to come together in ways we hadn’t before, mainly due to censorship issues. Big tech taking down our content has made us realize this is a global issue, pushing us to unite. I know, for example, that when we tried to promote our events through Meta, they took it down. That’s been a challenge, but we haven’t faced direct opposition to the event.
Jacobsen: I’d like to quote from the March 18 March 18, 1998 Rights to Sexual and Reproductive Health document by Dr. Carmel Shalev, a CEDAW expert, from the U.N. website. It states, “Failure to acknowledge women’s competence to consent to health care violates their right to equality before the law. Another example of violation of women’s rights to equality before the law relates to procedures for legal abortion.” Any move to make abortion illegal directly contradicts the U.N.’s stance since 1998. I’d argue that any movement against legal abortion is also against women’s fundamental equality before the law.
Dimitratou: That’s a great point, and I’m happy to connect you with the U.N. Foundation, which is hosting the primary event, to see if they have any updated statements. But yes, that’s a fair argument.
Jacobsen: Thanks, that’s about it. Is there anything else to cover?
Dimitratou: I’ll share more details with you later. We have some projections with The Illuminator tonight, and I’ll also share the Brussels project for context. Let me know if you have any other questions. This week has been hectic, but I’ll have more time tomorrow if you need anything else.
Jacobsen: How late will you be working tonight?
Dimitratou: I’ll be up late — probably 2 or 3 AM New York time.
Jacobsen: Oh, that works. I’ll send you a workable draft tonight for review.
Dimitratou: Yes, that sounds good.
Jacobsen: So, that’s how I do interviews — they’re extensive and aim to cover everything. You’re welcome.
Dimitratou: I’m super happy with that. I’ll return to whatever I’m working on and share what I have. Let me know if you have any questions.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. I tried to get my spirits back on track after the delay, but I hope I at least covered some of your questions.
Dimitratou: Excellent. Thank you so much, Martha. Appreciate it.
Safa Ahmed: Yes, sure. What this new survey reveals is that 80% of Indian American Muslims are reporting experiences of discrimination and exclusion, particularly by a political version of another religion, Hinduism, in the form of Hindu nationalism, often from their American peers.
For some background on where the idea for this survey came from, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) has existed for around 20 years. It was founded in 2002, right after Modi became the prime minister of Gujarat, a state in Northern India. In 2002, he was the chief minister of that state. Under his watch, and as reported by the BBC, many people claim, with his explicit permission, a pogrom was carried out against Indian Muslims.
Around 2,000 people were brutally slaughtered, raped, and mutilated. It was a horrific bloodbath, and this was labelled retaliatory violence by Hindu militant groups against Muslims who were accused of a crime they did not commit. IAMC was founded then because they saw Narendra Modi as a threat. He was going out of his way to legitimize and mainstream at the state level this political ideology known as Hindu nationalism or, as we at IMC often refer to it, Hindu supremacy—because that is what it is.
It is a movement that declares Hindus as superior, the only actual Indians—similar to the narratives of white supremacy, where there is only one “true” type of person who belongs in a country. For Hindu supremacists, that person is Hindu. They claim that minorities do not deserve to be in India, that they should either be reduced to second-class citizens or wiped out entirely and that they do not deserve any human rights, etc. Additionally, they believe that India should not be a secular democracy but a Hindu supremacist state or an ethno-state. This ideology has existed since World War II in India, even before the country gained independence. It has always been a fringe ideology promoted by Indian paramilitary groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), India’s oldest paramilitary group. The RSS has been involved in violence before, and one of its former members was implicated in the assassination of Gandhi.
He was ideologically conditioned by the RSS and Hindu supremacist ideology. This movement existed as a fringe idea for decades. Then, after becoming chief minister of Gujarat in the 2000s, Narendra Modi mainstreamed it in a way that had not been seen before. He made it acceptable for Hindu militant groups to come out of the woodwork and say, “Hey, we have the backing of the state. We have the implicit support of the government to carry out the violence we believe Muslims and other Indian minorities deserve, and we will not face any real consequences for it.”
That inflated Modi’s popularity and eventually led to his becoming the prime minister of India. Again, to provide some context, the IMC saw signs of Hindu supremacy, or Hindu nationalism, becoming more and more mainstream in India, and they believed this would eventually impact the United States as well. This issue has only grown over the past several years, especially since Modi’s re-election in 2019 (he has just been re-elected for a third term).
The exact date is escaping me right now, but around that time, we began to see a proliferation of support for Hindu nationalism and the spread of its ideology, narratives, and propaganda coming to the forefront in the U.S. Because of this, IAMC has been receiving anecdotal evidence for a long time from everyday Indian American Muslims saying, “Hey, there is something different now about our Hindu colleagues.” Even if it is not always explicitly hateful or racist, they say things, or we have experienced discrimination in one way or another, or there has been a disconnect with people we have been friends with our whole lives. Of course, religious harmony in India was never perfect.
It has never been perfect. However, many people in my parents’ generation, for example—those over 40—remember when it was not a big deal to have friends from a different faith. It was not something that divided people. Now, it has become this sense of community fracturing. The diaspora is fracturing around this Hindu nationalist ideology.
So, we thought this survey would be necessary because there has not been any formal research into how widespread the impact of Hindu nationalism is on Indian American Muslims. When we see these large numbers—80% of Indian American Muslims reporting some form of harassment or discrimination from Hindu nationalist colleagues, friends, or social contacts—it is putting numbers to something the community has known and been aware of for a long time. That is generally the story of statistics following the tacit knowledge already present in the community.
Jacobsen: So, in practical terms, how does this feel for the community? Is this experienced differently in a gendered way?
Ahmed: Yes, yes. Most of the respondents in the survey were male. It was a snowball sample, so these are primarily men responding. However, as an Indian American Muslim woman, I do not think this sort of thing discriminates. There are so many different stories we have heard from people encountering anti-Muslim content online, being told anti-Muslim talking points that closely mirror the BJP’s, even in casual conversations.
I have faced it in college classes from Hindu classmates whom I would not necessarily categorize as Hindu nationalists. However, maybe their parents are, or maybe their parents teach them narratives about India, its history, and the Muslim presence there that are hateful but framed in a way that makes them think it is acceptable to discuss because they believe they are talking about their heritage. It is so widespread that the impact is this collective feeling of isolation, fear, and emotional fatigue, which the report addresses. There has been a mental and emotional toll on Indian American Muslims. Some respondents said, “I am emotionally devastated by what is happening.”
In India, another person said, “I am worried about my kids growing up in this climate of anti-Muslim hate.” Another person said, “My Muslim son is excluded from his Hindu peers’ activities at school.” There is much fear, not just about the threat of Hindu nationalism to communities in the United States, but also a massive fear that violence will be enacted on friends, relatives, and family members in India. Some people in the survey even said, “I’m scared that there’s going to be a genocide against Muslims in India.”
By extension, this includes family members we are constantly worried about. We do not know who is going to be the next target of wanton mob violence or lynchings. This kind of violence is so widespread in India that it carries with it a sense of existential dread for the future of Muslims there.
To bring it back to how Indian American Muslims are feeling specifically, let me pull up the exact statistic for you quickly. A percentage of respondents said they think that Hindu nationalism is a threat to democracy in the United States.
Jacobsen: So, we talked about how it is gendered. We are going to pull some other statistics. When it comes to that gender aspect, what is the data telling us? Because 80% is a large number.
Ahmed: Yes, it is a majority. So, the point I was making before the interview stopped is that, yes, the report surveyed primarily men, but anecdotally speaking, this issue is much larger than just the sample population we had responded to the survey. I would say that regardless of gender—and, in some cases, even location—this is happening a lot in big cities where there is a large Indian diaspora population.
Previously, examinations of Hindu nationalism in the U.S. have mainly focused on places like California and the West Coast, particularly in the significant tech sectors. However, we also had many respondents from North Carolina, for example. That is what I mean when I say location. What we are seeing is that many people, regardless of gender, are impacted by the fact that there is so much online abuse against Muslims. There are so many Hindu nationalist groups in the United States working to push anti-Muslim narratives while collaborating, in some cases, with white Christian nationalists and the MAGA movement, allying themselves with the broader American far right. It is now safe to say that this is a multiracial far-right movement.
In those terms, yes, people are seeing that Hindu nationalism has become pervasive. Groups are trying to push these Hindu nationalist narratives about Indian history into the American educational system. There are also groups in civil society spaces that claim to speak for Hindus but are pushing anti-Muslim propaganda, providing cover for the BJP and its actions in India, and trying to kill resolutions. For example, in Chicago, Hindu nationalist groups lobbied hard to kill a resolution in the city council that labelled the Citizenship Amendment Act in India as anti-Muslim.
So, there is this pervasiveness of Hindu nationalism, including in cultural spaces. Indian Independence Day, which is supposed to be a celebration of Indians of all backgrounds, has been hijacked multiple times and turned into a celebration of Hindu nationalist jingoism. This happened in 2020 in New Jersey and recently in New York with their Indian Independence Day parade.
Ahmed: So that is what we are looking at more broadly. If you want more specific statistics about what we are seeing in the workplace or on social media, 70% of respondents experienced biased treatment from Hindu nationalist colleagues. 48% of respondents reported harassment on social media, which includes platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and Reddit. A lot of Islamophobic content originates in India. It gets posted on these platforms, pushing Muslims into a further isolated state. I am trying to find any other more specific stats to give you.
Jacobsen: I also have data from the poll, as reported in Revelation Unplugged. Other numbers connected to quantitative metrics are also listed.
For example, 90% of respondents agreed that Hindu nationalism is “a threat to Muslims in the United States” and “a threat to democracy in the United States.” 70% reported biased treatment from Hindu colleagues, such as being passed over for promotions or receiving anti-Muslim remarks at work. In addition, 48% reported harassment and discrimination on social media, describing the experience as “emotionally exhausting” and “contributing to feelings of isolation and hostility.”
These large numbers reflect the deep feelings expressed in these poll findings. Suppose you are living in the United States, and you are seeing an arm of this politicization of Hindu ideology into Hindu nationalism affecting your life in a completely different country. What are some things the polls might be reporting on, but not directly, in terms of an interpretive lens on it?
So, if you take the raw data—the 90%, the 80%, the 70%, the 48%, and so on—those are direct numbers related to specific statements about biased treatment, harassment, discrimination, discrimination on social media channels, professional damage, and so on. Are any aspects not directly reported in the poll numbers but reflected in them if you interpret the data more professionally, without mere speculation?
Ahmed: If we are talking about things that are not directly reflected in the survey data, one point might be the sense of vulnerability and fear that Hindu nationalists are collaborating with the far-right in the United States, which could have much more tangible consequences for Muslims of all backgrounds in the U.S. If we were to look at global issues, where does Hindu nationalism play a role in complicating those issues? One place to consider is Israel and Palestine.
Ahmed: Reuters reported on how anti-Palestinian disinformation, aimed at justifying the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, was spread by Hindu nationalist social media users in India. Hindu nationalism is already costing lives in India and has the potential to affect Muslims globally. There is an enormous network of trolls and influencers spreading disinformation and propaganda, which, while not yet costing lives in the U.S. like it is in Palestine or India, has instilled fear in Indian American Muslims. They worry that, as this movement grows, they will face tangible losses.
Survey respondents reported facing harassment campaigns, coordinated trolling, doxxing, death threats, and rape threats, especially those in advocacy. There is a sense that Hindu nationalism is a well-connected, well-organized, and influential movement with links to other anti-Muslim groups globally. These sentiments were revealed in the survey. I hope that answers the question better.
As your executive director Rashid Ahmed said the survey “provides quantitative proof of what many Indian American Muslims have known to be true for decades. Namely, that Hindu nationalism is a corrosive force in American life, just as it is in India.” It impacts the lives of individual Indian Muslims in the U.S., making it particularly corrosive to American society.
Coming from a nonreligious perspective, I recognize that some movements—despite their positive contributions—have made mistakes in addressing these issues. They sometimes built upon existing anti-Muslim sentiment that has long been present in the U.S. My next question is, what is being done—or can be done—to combat this?
This goes beyond individual or legislative discrimination. We are dealing with an active political movement aiming to undermine equality measures at the policy level.
Ahmed: To address this, we need to have a conversation about the pervasiveness of Hindu supremacy, how so many Americans are unaware of it and the dangers it poses. Civil rights spaces in the U.S. need to examine what Hindu nationalism is, how to identify it, and how to recognize when someone uses the language of human rights and social justice but is pushing a harmful and divisive agenda.
Some Hindu nationalists and groups often masquerade as minority rights organizations or progressive/liberal groups to gain acceptance more quickly in the United States. Of course, there is a problem of racism on the right, so in some cases, to avoid that and get their message heard in more liberal spaces, some of these groups present themselves as human rights organizations. They may hold progressive stances on issues like climate change or civil rights in general. Still, then they turn around and support the BJP and Modi, spreading harmful talking points about Indian Muslims, justifying terrible policies, and opposing civil rights protections for minorities in the U.S. Because they are minorities themselves, they often avoid the scrutiny that a typical right-wing movement would receive, making it easier for them to camouflage.
Every group in the United States deserves protection, respect, and dignity, including Indian Americans of all backgrounds. No one should face racism, but there needs to be greater awareness of Hindu nationalism in certain circles. We need to be able to identify who is trying to divide others and make Muslims feel unsafe in the U.S., which is an affront to the First Amendment, and who is making American political spaces more hostile to minority groups within the Indian diaspora. These actions need to be called out, and spaces should make it clear that there is no room for organizations promoting hate, supremacy, and division.
Policymakers must also recognize that while there have been pushes to take Islamophobia more seriously in the U.S., many efforts have been little more than lip service. Islamophobia is a problem often viewed through the lens of the far-right. Still, there is Islamophobia in liberal spaces, too, and it is essential to combat misconceptions about the Muslim community across the board.
We also need to recognize that a multiracial far-right exists in the U.S., where groups use their minority status to shield themselves while pushing hateful and supremacist movements. Policymakers must understand that addressing Islamophobia starts with identifying the various actors aggressively promoting it online and in policy spaces. Who is demonizing Muslim Americans, making them feel unsafe, and pushing them out of policy spaces? For example, the Illinois Senate passed the Indian American Advisory Council Act, which sought to understand the diaspora community better but ultimately changed the definition of “Indian” to exclude Muslims.
The bill initially defined “Indian” as someone descended from any country in the subcontinent that is not primarily Muslim, including India, Bhutan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. This excluded millions of Muslims from the definition and reflected Hindu nationalist rhetoric, aiming for a concept called Akhand Bharat, an expanded version of India. This supremacist goal seeks to claim the entire subcontinent as a “greater India.” The law had to be walked back after outrage from Indian American Muslims.
There needs to be a better understanding of how Hindu nationalism quietly influences American politics. It has been doing so for a long time. We need to learn how to identify it and understand its implications to combat it. Civil rights spaces and policymakers should focus on increasing their education and making informed decisions based on that knowledge.
Jennifer Wilkerson is the Vice President of Innovation and Advancement at the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER). Her background includes teaching high school English for 13 years and serving as the acting business manager for six years at the welding and fabrication company she and her husband founded and own.
In her current role at NCCER, Jennifer oversees the innovation process within the organization to identify and implement strategies, opportunities and technologies that support the mission of NCCER. In addition, the test development, research, video, and customer support and engagement departments report to her.
She has been with NCCER for over 14 years where she began as a project manager overseeing the development and revision of curricula and assessments. From there she moved into the marketing department as the director where she helped cultivate a successful marketing team who won numerous awards and enhanced NCCER’s brand and presence in the construction and maintenance marketplace. She also oversaw the Build Your Future initiative that generated a renewed interest in recruitment and image enhancement for the industry.
Jennifer actively presents about workforce development issues and resources, construction career pathways, industry-education partnerships, women in construction, and recruitment into the construction and maintenance industries.
She holds degrees in English Education and Business Administration.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, first of all, why the focus on construction?
Jennifer Wilkerson: I work for the National Center for Construction Education and Research, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit education foundation. My husband is in construction, and I worked with him.
I taught high school for 13 years and helped him manage our welding business. When I found the National Center for Construction Education and Research, it was a great blend of my husband’s career and my own. I’ve been working at this education foundation for 15 years now.
Jacobsen: What issues do people in construction face? I have worked in this industry and understand some challenges.
Wilkerson: As an industry overall, our biggest issue is a serious workforce shortage. This has been a persistent issue for years. Many people left the industry during the Great Recession in 2009–2010, and we saw the same happen during COVID-19. At the same time, these mega projects, like data centers and initiatives driven by the Chip Infrastructure Act, increase the demand for construction work. However, the attrition rate in the industry is alarming — for every five people leaving, only one is entering.
Some factors affecting individuals working in the industry include travel and working outdoors. Unfortunately, we have not done a good job of telling our story as an industry. Many people don’t know what to expect when entering the construction field. As an education foundation, one of our key roles is reaching out to high and middle schools to ensure young people understand what it means to work in the skilled trades, particularly construction.
Often, individuals enter the industry with certain expectations and realize later that the reality is different. For instance, my husband has hired welders who didn’t realize how hot it would be on the job. It’s welding so that it will be hot, but some people are unprepared for that reality.
Travel is another challenge. Someone not working for a company with a steady local presence may need to travel. Large construction companies often have projects in multiple states — I’ve spoken with people managing projects across 39 states. When one project ends, another begins, which can still create anxiety about job security. However, with the current high worker demand, there’s less worry about where the next job will come from.
Recently, we’ve also focused on mental health in the construction industry, a positive development. I’m proud to see a growing effort to address this. The Associated Builders and Contractors coined the term “Total Human Health,” which goes beyond physical safety to mental health. The Bechtel Foundation has committed $7.5 million to support initiatives like suicide prevention and mental health in general. Given the travel, time away from family, and unhealthy eating habits that can come with this career, mental health is a vital concern.
And so, one of the things our industry is trying to do is focus on how we can help people, knowing that this is part of being in our industry.
Jacobsen: What issues specifically and mostly affect women in construction?
So, it’s interesting. Number one, and this is no secret, even though there are 8 million people in the construction industry, only 4% are women in the trades. That percentage increases to about 11 or 12% if you include women in office roles.
Suppose you’re talking about engineers, project managers, architects, or anyone in an office setting, whether they are executives or otherwise. In that case, the numbers are a bit higher. However, as for the trades, a couple of factors are at play. First, women haven’t traditionally been part of this male-dominated industry. Young women don’t grow up thinking, “I’m going to go into construction,” even though many girls love building things.
They enjoy playing with Legos, like creating things and have that mindset, but they need to be told about construction as a career option. Interestingly enough, I read a study in which researchers took a small group of 100 elementary school children and asked them what careers they were interested in. None of the girls picked construction. When the researchers asked the girls why they didn’t choose construction, they said, “Oh, I’m not strong enough. It’s not for girls.”
So, there’s this huge misconception, especially in today’s world of technology, where many jobs in construction don’t require brute strength anymore. Yet, many women and families still hold that perception.
First, we need help combating these misconceptions. Second, when women enter the field, they are often concerned about the same things all women are concerned about: child care, working on male-dominated sites with very few women, and wondering, “Am I the first woman to break into this company? How is this going to work for me?”
Our industry is making strides in this area. We spent about 8 or 9 months conducting research. We spoke to 176 women working in the construction industry and their managers. We wanted to learn two things: What unique abilities and qualities do women bring to project sites? Second, what must we change as an industry to recruit more women?
We received fantastic responses. Interestingly, one of the unique qualities the women and their managers identified is that women are very team-oriented. Women have a natural ability to encourage those around them, and they want to do that. Sometimes, men, though not a bad thing, get focused on their careers and individual performance, while women tend to want everyone to succeed.
The Construction Industry Institute conducted a survey a few years ago with 2,700 respondents. About 5% of the respondents were women, and the rest were men. At some point in the survey, men were asked to rate themselves on productivity, safety, quality, and absenteeism. The men with at least one woman on their crew rated themselves higher in these areas.
After further investigation, it turned out that women’s positive attitude and team-oriented nature contributed to the crew’s overall improvement. Another interesting thing women bring to the job is that they are very good at following prescribed design and engineering plans. This was noted across the board.
I always give the example of my husband and me getting something that requires assembly. I want to read the directions. I want to make sure everything is clear. I want to know how to do it properly. He’s the opposite — ”Oh, I can put it together; I don’t need the instructions.” It’s very natural. We don’t have the brute strength that men do, so we make up for it in other ways: by following instructions, paying attention to detail, and ensuring safety.
I think, “Let me follow this engineering plan. Let me make sure I’m doing it correctly. Let me make sure I’m using the right tools safely.” It was interesting to find that women brought attention to detail, focus, and precision to the job, and it wasn’t surprising to see that reflected in our findings.
Of course, women are also concerned about discrimination and sexual harassment. We talked a lot, and they shared suggestions on how to avoid bias, even based on someone’s name. Interestingly enough, one woman shared her experience — and others in the group echoed it. She said, “I applied for a job under my name, Christine, and didn’t get a callback. I changed it to Chris, keeping everything else the same, and I got a callback.”
One of the things we’ve emphasized in our research is making sure that recruiters and HR departments are aware of these biases. People are not doing it intentionally. Still, since it’s a male-dominated industry, there needs to be more clarity about what women can or cannot do. The woman we spoke to clarified: “Give me the chance; let me prove myself.”
Another thing women should have expected was the amount of training involved. Training is crucial for anyone in the industry, especially those not exposed to the trades. Many women we spoke to, particularly those in companies with strong training programs, expressed loyalty to their employers and pride in their achievements. Some said they didn’t think they’d be able to advance, but training helped them move forward in their careers.
However, 57% of the interviewed women had never had a woman supervisor. They had never seen a female foreman, superintendent, or project manager on a job site. And, like anyone, why would you stay in that industry if you don’t see the possibility of advancing your career?
We’ve discussed this with companies and contractors. It’s important to identify women early on, mentor and sponsor them, and give them opportunities for advancement. 63% of women surveyed said they wanted management positions but didn’t see a path forward without role models.
It’s the classic “If I can’t see it, I can’t achieve it” issue. If women don’t see other women in leadership positions, they don’t feel they can reach those positions themselves. This is a concern that needs to be addressed.
Jacobsen: You mentioned accommodating mothers — how important is that in this industry?
Wilkerson: Obviously, women are still the primary caregivers. Reports have shown that this hasn’t changed much, whether it’s caring for children or elderly parents. Some interesting suggestions came from our discussions with women in industrial projects, especially large ones. For example, one suggestion was to provide parent parking. At first, it was a small, odd request, but it’s quite important.
They explained that they could finish work in time to pick up their kids, but they couldn’t make it on time because it takes an hour to leave the project site. When I mentioned this to contractors, they responded, “Oh, yes, we can do that. That’s not a big deal.” It’s a small change but one that makes a big difference.
Another issue that came up was PTO (paid time off). You may have experienced this yourself — PTO needs to be consistent. You can’t give paid time off to people in the office but not to those in the field. This was a huge complaint and a significant source of frustration. Some progressive companies we spoke with said, “Of course, we provide PTO.” However, the majority do not offer it to field workers.
45% of the women we interviewed said they were uncomfortable asking for time off to care for their children. They said, “I don’t ask for time off for myself, but I’m scared to even ask for time off for my kids.” This creates a culture of resentment between the office staff and field workers.
I hadn’t thought about this much. My husband and I run a welding fabrication shop, and we offer paid time off. It never occurred to us not to do that, but many companies don’t. Consistent policies are essential because how can any parent, especially a single parent, take care of their children if they’re scared to ask for time off to attend a game or event?
This is a significant issue, and once we explained it to the companies, they started to see the problem. I don’t know why they didn’t realize it before, but addressing this conflict between office and field employees is crucial.
Another suggestion that seemed commonsensical was, why does everyone have to start work at the same time and finish at the same time? This could be a source of conflict, but it also presents an opportunity for improvement, especially during certain seasons. For those working outdoors in extreme conditions — mud, ice, heat waves — it makes sense to have flexible hours.
Some said, “I can come in extra early, but I can’t stay late.” Others said, “I can come in later, but I can stay much later.” Introducing shift work is one of the proposals we’ve put forward in our industry. Many projects run around the clock because there’s so much to do, but why does everyone have to start at 6 or 7 in the morning and work 50 to 60 hours a week with the same schedule? The site isn’t going anywhere — it’s construction. We have lighting systems that can make the work possible at any time of the day.
Jacobsen: That’s a great point. These simple changes could make a big difference for employees, especially women. At some point, it could be challenging if you’re in a highly built-area with many residential homes. You might get complaints from locals about light pollution, and there could even be a fee from the local council.
Wilkerson: That’s true.
Jacobsen: It is true, but it does make sense. If you think about it, you’d get better productivity. You could have one group working from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and another from 7 a.m. onward. Your entire day would be covered by people working on the project site. That was an interesting idea.
I remember a recent project I did at a horse farm for about 27 months. I was working seven days a week. Some days were 14 hours; others were shorter. Yet, they provided flexibility regarding when I could come in. If you’re shovelling horse poop and putting fresh shavings in 20, 30, and sometimes even 60 stalls, which is a lot, you need to get it done during the day. You don’t always need to do it in the middle of the day. That flexibility is highly appealing, especially for people with commitments, like single parents or those caring for a sick parent. Flexibility like that could be a huge draw. That leads to another question. Why are women leaving? Why is retention for women more of an issue than for men?
Wilkerson: You never want to use the word “accommodations” because it makes it sound like we’re asking for special treatment, but we’re not. In reality, women often carry more of the burden regarding childcare and other responsibilities. Sometimes, women leave because they don’t see the companies they work for making efforts to work with them. They don’t see that support happening.
It’s more likely that a man will say, “I’ll stick it out. I’ll do it. I’ll suck it up.” But women can only sometimes do that. And this also applies to single fathers — if they’re raising children independently, they would feel the same way. However, we see this issue more often with women.
Another thing that doesn’t appeal to women is the experience on job sites, such as using a port-a-potty daily. When I talk to contractors about this, they say, “We put a lock on it, we even painted it—seriously, we thought that was enough.”
And I say, “Are you kidding me? Let me explain it to you.” I tell them, “Once a month, women have something they need to carry to the restroom multiple times a day. Where are they supposed to put it down in the porta potty? What are they supposed to do?” Then they start realizing, “Oh, I thought it was just about locking the door.” They seriously hadn’t considered why women asked for different job site facilities.
Jacobsen: Those are two separate points as well. First, the comfort level of using a porta potty on a construction site, especially regarding sanitation, is an issue. The second point relates to the different social dynamics, like the type of humour on a construction site compared to the office. The humour on a site tends to be much more vulgar.
Wilkerson: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, for individuals who aren’t used to it, the experience can be jarring. And that monthly cleanliness issue we discussed becomes part of that humour, whether or not it’s addressed in their presence. This affects the social dynamics and can also impact retention.
Wilkerson: I agree with you. I was impressed by one particular contractor — I won’t mention any names — who had strict policies regarding sexual harassment and discrimination. They posted these policies on the project sites, had them on their website, and included them in the tool talks in the morning. They made it part of the daily routine. In one instance, something happened, and the company shut down the job site for five days. They told everyone, “You’re not getting paid. Everyone’s going home until we figure out what happened here.”
If more companies took that stand, we could prevent many issues. As you said, some people think it’s just jokes or humour, but others perceive it differently. We need to train people to understand that.
In many cases, they don’t know better. If no women have ever been on the project site, it’s just “boys’ locker room talk.” They don’t realize they wouldn’t speak that way around their wives or daughters. They don’t make the connection.
Jacobsen: Yes. That reminds me of my experience during basic training in the Canadian military earlier this year. Their policies on sexual harassment were implemented in subtle ways, to their credit. They’ve had failings, and I’ve reported on that, but subtle things came up. For instance, if your uniform was out of order — like a loose button or an unzipped fly — you might have to do 25 push-ups.
If someone had four buttons open, that could be 100 push-ups on top of everything else during basic training. However, if they needed to correct something on your uniform without punishment, they would always ask, “May I touch you?” This was consistently applied throughout my entire platoon during training. They also held classroom discussions on sexual harassment — what it is and what it isn’t — which were very structured, as you’d expect in the military.
I suspect similar measures could be implemented on worksites.
Wilkerson: Exactly. That’s why we’ve suggested incorporating it into the tool talk in the morning. You don’t want to remind people constantly, but eventually, it becomes second nature. It should be part of the culture, just like safety.
I spoke with an ironworker, a woman, a couple of years ago, and we discussed this issue. She said, “What people don’t realize is that if you’ve said something to me that bothers me or I take offence to, and then I’m 50 stories in the air with you, tying off on a beam, I’m worried that you’re looking at my butt.” It creates a distraction and makes the work environment feel unsafe.
I’m worried, and that causes safety issues. That is part of safety. That’s why we suggest making it part of the safety talks. For everyone to be safe mentally and physically, we need to be aware of what we’re saying, what we’re doing, and how we’re making people feel. That’s a huge issue, especially when working 50 or 100 feet in the air.
Jacobsen: There are many construction sites that, on paper, agree with all the safety guidelines. Still, in practice, some people drink on-site, smoke marijuana on-site, or work under the influence of substances without considering the impacts on others. Even if you ignore ethical and legal guidelines regarding safety and health, at the very least, they are putting themselves at risk.
Wilkerson: I’ve seen this too. It’s not uncommon.
Jacobsen: I’ve witnessed individuals who, through carelessness, sustained severe injuries. For example, while I was working for a concrete form company, we had someone fall off a roof and barely miss the concrete forms. These heavy steel structures hold foundations in place before removing them and taking the wood down.
He landed on a soft, crushed rock, but he partially broke his back and walked with a limp afterward. He was a French Quebecois; that injury happened over a decade before I met him. That kind of injury lasts a lifetime.
Wilkerson: Exactly. We have to take these things into account.
Jacobsen: I had ACL surgery from a sports injury, so I have to remember that my knee doesn’t have the same structural integrity as most other people’s. The surrounding muscles have to compensate. While working on a farm, I had two back injuries. Thankfully, I received financial support for time off and medical help. Still, these are the kinds of concerns that come with physically demanding environments. These are extraordinarily tough environments.
Wilkerson: Yes.
Jacobsen: Reflecting on your earlier points, I realize this needs to be expressed honestly in high and middle schools. The physical risks and rewards need to be communicated clearly. It can also be a very fulfilling job. If you’re with the right crew — people who care for one another — and, as you noted, a woman on the crew can often contribute to that team-building and uplifting environment. Whether she’s a fellow crew member or in a leadership role, this holds.
Based on the evidence, how can we best express a more modern work environment with greater gender parity? How can we use the social and cultural strengths of both men and women on these sites to ensure projects are completed on time while following instructions to the letter?
Wilkerson: The companies doing the best job are the ones where it could be more top-down.
Someone can sit in the C-suite and say whatever they want. As you mentioned earlier, it’s on paper. They believe in it, but if they don’t have their frontline managers bought into that vision, it won’t work. They need to train those managers — specifically for construction.
Here’s the reality: 51% of our population is women. We’re facing a shortage: We need 1.5 million people in this industry over the next year and a half to two years. Where are we going to find them? If we don’t start opening up to minorities and women, we won’t be able to meet the demand. Owners are already seeing project delays, schedule delays, and other challenges. The only way forward is for us as an industry to embrace the need for diversity.
We’ve talked to many people, especially at larger companies, and they’re doing a good job. There’s always room for improvement, but I see the breakdown when companies aren’t training their supervisors, superintendents, and assistant superintendents.
You can talk all day in the office about your commitment to diversity and uplifting everyone. But it will only happen once you go down and train the people on the front lines, ensuring that this commitment is ingrained in them and holding them accountable. That’s absolutely what has to happen.
Jacobsen: Do you think having honest conversations with younger people about the rough nature of the job — let them know that this is a viable career option but comes with challenges — is essential? If you’re in the field, you’re working in all seasons. If you’re in Arizona, you will deal with very hot and dry weather. It might be windier and colder if you’re in Seattle, Washington.
Wilkerson: Yes, exactly. There’s always a trade-off. Some careers work better for certain people. It’s about finding the right fit. What we tell young people is that there are lots of options. For those who don’t want to sit in an office all day, don’t want to be confined by four walls, and want something different every day, construction can offer those benefits. But like any job, there are trade-offs.
We hear young people say, “I want to be a doctor; I want to do this.” But do they understand the hours and responsibilities of those jobs? Every career has trade-offs. We try to highlight the benefits.
There’s great camaraderie in construction. People make lifelong friends. You’re giving back to the community by building hospitals, schools, and stadiums — cool stuff you can drive by and say with pride, “I helped build that.” But, again, there are trade-offs.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. It’s about balancing expectations.
Wilkerson: Exactly. I was pleased to hear from some of the women we interviewed. They came from all different backgrounds, and many were proud to share their accomplishments with their children. One woman said, “I want my kids to know what I do.” Some of them mentioned that, in the past, they didn’t want their children to know what their job was, but now they feel a real sense of pride in their work.
But now, I feel proud of it. I get to say, “Mom’s over there working on this,” or “We’re building this.” Again, there are trade-offs. You must be honest with young people because otherwise, you bring in many people who will leave within the first 90 days. It won’t last.
With the career and technical education programs we work within high schools and community colleges, we say:
Make it realistic.
Don’t have it all in the lab.
Don’t let them sit there without knowing what working in different environments will be like.
They need to know that. They need to be able to make an informed choice because they want to make that choice.
Jacobsen: Yes. I remember working on a farm where I lived on-site. I had to walk out into two feet of snow, haul myself onto a tractor, and clear a path to start on the stalls early. That comes with the job. I didn’t know how to drive a tractor or work with horses. I had no experience. Surprisingly, I didn’t get injured by the horses, but I did get injured working with them through overwork — partly my fault.
So, if we implement these changes, is there any data showing reductions in prejudice on the worksite or injuries and deaths? Or, perhaps, reductions in suicides related to worksite stress, as you mentioned earlier?
Wilkerson: Yes. Specifically for women, we’ve put out an implementation guide based on a research project we conducted. We’re now preparing to work with a few contractors to do specific case studies so we can gather more data. Unfortunately, we don’t have much data yet.
In general, fatalities have decreased across the industry as safety measures have improved. Contractors look at recordable incident rates, and clients like Google, ExxonMobil, or Dow want to know a contractor’s recordable incident rate before awarding them a job. Contractors with high accident rates are not getting the jobs they used to because this has become a key factor in construction project bids, especially in the large commercial and industrial sectors where we primarily work.
You won’t win the work if you have a poor recordable incident rate. It’s one of the required metrics in a proposal. So, we’ve seen fatalities decrease over time, but as I mentioned earlier, we’re concerned about the rising suicide rates. That’s why mental health has become a significant focus for us.
As I mentioned, the Bechtel Foundation has provided funds and started working with the American Suicide Foundation. They brought them in to be a part of the initiative to ask, “In five years, how do we dramatically reduce the suicide rates in the construction industry?” Because, as you said, you don’t always know what’s happening — it could be that night, before they come to work, or at any time. There’s a significant concern in our industry because of the stress involved. You’re travelling; you’re away from your family.
We know there’s drug abuse and alcohol abuse, especially when you’re travelling and don’t have your normal support network. Unfortunately, the construction industry has the second-highest suicide rate among all industries. That’s why progressive companies are adopting mental health awareness as part of their safety plans.
Jacobsen: Mental health is becoming an essential component of safety.
Wilkerson: Exactly. I’ve heard companies talk about treating workers like industrial athletes. They’re teaching their employees who travel for them what to eat on the road, how to maintain good sleep habits, why they shouldn’t drink energy drinks during hot weather, and what they should do instead. It will take a while, but I see companies stepping up and committing to this, so I have hope for the future.
Jacobsen: One thing I don’t agree with is turning this into political currency. I’m sure you’ve read arguments or seen individuals or organizations claim, “Men take most of the dangerous jobs.” While that’s factual, it’s the wrong frame. The appropriate response is to ask, “How do we reduce mortality and injury rates in these dangerous jobs while increasing gender parity?” That’s a much healthier orientation. It shifts the focus to improving conditions rather than objectifying people or using their work as political talking points.
Wilkerson: Exactly. Political objectification of people — especially those working in tough jobs — is highly inappropriate and insensitive.
Jacobsen: It’s about finding solutions, not using people as leverage.
Wilkerson: Larger companies are already making strides. Safety has become a top priority. Safety is integrated into every chapter in our curriculum, whether we’re teaching welding, carpentry, or pipe fitting. The industry has done a great job moving the needle on safety, at least with our companies.
Jacobsen: Suppose you’re safety-oriented and consider all safety aspects, including mental health and overall well-being. In that case, you can make a real impact. Even simple things matter. I remember working on a site as a teenager, and I got the worst heat stroke I’ve ever had. I’m very fair-skinned, and my entire face blistered — I was bedridden. Something as simple as having sunscreen and staying hydrated with electrolytes could have prevented that.
Wilkerson: Yes, those small measures can make a significant difference.
Jacobsen: Yep. No one was drinking anything on that site or encouraging it. In fact, on a personal note, I’ve written about this — my father is an alcohol misuser, and that was the only liquid available on that site. I didn’t partake, but that’s part of the culture, probably still prevalent, especially from the ’90s. It will take time to change, but it can change, and it’s for the better health of the men and women doing these extraordinarily difficult yet crucial foundational jobs for any infrastructure project.
Wilkerson: Absolutely. Yes, drug and alcohol testing has become a big focus. Contractors we talk to say, “Are you willing to train people?” We ask, “What type of person do you want us to help recruit? What are your requirements?” And they always say, “They need to pass a drug and alcohol test.” If someone can pass that and is committed to staying clean, they can be trained for any skilled trade they want. But they must understand that they’ll have to pass these tests regularly.
I visited the Kentucky Welding Institute, an amazing training facility. The people in their programs do urine, hair follicles, and blood tests. They tell students, “Get used to it. You will be tested regularly.” Even in school, they do random tests to prepare them because the employers hiring from that program require clean drug and alcohol tests at any time.
Jacobsen: Yep. That’s entirely fair. If it’s your time, that’s fine — it’s your life. But you can’t be under the influence when you’re being paid for a job and working an 8- or 16-hour shift. It’s irresponsible, not only to yourself but also to your employer, who trusts you with their finances and project.
Wilkerson: Yes, and to your colleagues. As you said earlier, you’re putting others in danger if you’re impaired because you can’t make sound decisions when you’re in the air or doing high-risk tasks. I was impressed with the program. They tell students, “We won’t help you get hired if you can’t pass these tests. If you can’t do it now, you won’t be able to do it later.”
Jacobsen: I have cousins and uncles who’ve spent their entire careers in construction. Once this gets published, I’ll send it to them for their review.
Wilkerson: There you go!
Jacobsen: I had a last question, but we’ve covered it six ways. I probably talked too much — there’s much you can sift through.
Wilkerson: No worries. What’s the last question?
Jacobsen: How can we retain people in this extremely hard field, specifically women?
Wilkerson: Listen to what we’re talking about here. We need to make changes. We retain people by making every project site a project of choice. We need to think about the people working for us — whether it’s the facilities, the break areas, or what they’re doing during the day. How are we helping them?
These are skilled professionals who build incredible things. We cannot treat them like, “I need you for this project, and it’s going to be an 18-month job.” We need to treat them as human beings, and we want to stay in this industry. I see some companies committed to this — making their project sites ones people want to visit.
We need to think about what that means. You mentioned hydration — what else do we need to provide? What tools, education, drinks, food? What are we doing for them? Contractors must ask themselves, “Would I want my daughter, wife, or son to come here and work daily?” Is this an environment that encourages people to want to come back every day? They must take a hard look and evaluate if the answer is no. Talk to your people.
The interviewed women said, “Come and ask us — we’re happy to tell you what’s working and what’s not.” Contractors need to get out of their offices and find out what the people on the ground need to do their jobs and what makes them want to stay on a project site they enjoy coming to.
Not like the project where you got sunburned and thought, “Holy cow, this is crazy.” We need to get out of our offices and have people out there who are the voices of those in the field. Years ago, people referred to workers as “hands” — how many hands do we have on-site? No. They’re not just hands; they’re people.
The solution to this problem and how to retain workers is to ask yourself, “Would I want my kids, my spouse, or my significant other on this project site? Would they be comfortable here?” Listen, my husband’s been to sites where he said, “Absolutely, I’d be fine with our girls being here.” But he’s also been to other sites where he said, “Not on your life.”
Jacobsen: That’s a stark contrast.
Wilkerson: It is. And here’s the thing — both of our daughters are in construction. Both of them. Not everything is perfect, but they’ve said, “You know what?” My younger daughter, 22 and in construction management, told me, “I can honestly say the team I work with has my back. They treat me like I’m their sister.” However, the reason is that the company’s owner accepts nothing less.
She’s been on project sites with teams that weren’t like that, but when she works with a team that treats her like a sister; she says, “That’s where I want to be.” They have her back, and she feels good about it.
Jacobsen: And the biggest benefit for companies regarding retention is longevity. You’ll have a healthier, longer-lasting career for many people. Even if they’re working for the summer, you might attract them back for a long-term career.
Wilkerson: Exactly. They’ll want to return if you create a welcoming, supportive environment.
Yes. In the past — and you’ve probably experienced this — a lot has changed in the industry. Contractors used to think only about the current project: “I need people for this project right now.” But there’s the short game and the long game. The long game is that if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do now, you won’t be worried about hiring for the next project.
Jacobsen: Exactly.
Wilkerson: I always ask, “What’s your short game?” You want qualified people for the next three projects, but what will you do after that? Are you going out of business? Don’t you need people for the long term?
Another thing is that the United States has an enormous number of infrastructure projects that either need to be done or require repair and updates, now and especially in the coming years. America has always been a country of big infrastructure projects.
Jacobsen: Yes, I noticed that. After doing most of my basic training in Canada earlier this year, I took a trip to the U.S. I went from New York to Boston, DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, LA, and Seattle. The first thing that impressed me, especially in New York, was the massive infrastructure projects the U.S. has undertaken throughout its history. Many of those will need repair or updating in the coming decades.
Wilkerson: Yes, there’s a lot of job and career opportunities. But we have to treat our people right. It’s a lot to manage. I’ve probably kept you way too long. There’s so much information here; I don’t know how you will decipher it all!
Jacobsen: I want to say thank you very much for your extended time today. This conversation has been incredibly crucial — not just for women in the industry but for the health of the entire industry.
Wilkerson: You’re welcome! It’s great to talk about it.
Jacobsen: I can’t say I was in construction for very long or was any good at it, but I understand the experience.
Wilkerson: That’s cool that you got to experience it.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is there anything physics-related? Here is a thought: Space exploration used to be the coolestthing that captured everyone’s imagination.
Rick Rosner: Yes, especially back in the ’60s and ’70s. Before you were born, we would get out of class every time there was an Apollo launch.
Jacobsen: But now, do people care about space anymore?
Rosner: It is exciting, but nothing it used to be. We are more focused on our devices and what is happening on Earth than the idea of people living on the Moon.
There are still practical applications for space technology that could be transformative. For example, suppose we could capture a metallic asteroid—not an ice ball—and figure out how to mine it. In that case, that asteroid might contain as many rare earth metals as we’ve been able to mine on Earth, maybe more because the whole thing could be made of those materials. The challenge is that it’s zipping through space.
If we could drag it into Earth’s orbit, we could mine it and drop the metals down to Earth. That is exciting in a technical sense, but it does not inspire the same sense of wonder that space exploration once did. All the awe comes from information processing, AI, and other Earth-bound technology developments.
Jacobsen: So the question is, in a world that seems to care less about space exploration and other important things, having kids, does that reflect a diminishing interest in metaphysics and physics?
Rosner: People are so busy with social media and everything else that we need to make more babies to sustain the population. In the U.S., the replacement rate should be around 2.1 children per woman, but we are at 1.62. So we are only making 80% of the babies we need to keep the population stable if it were not for immigration.
We are less interested in space and relationships. Does that mean we care less about the deeper questions—metaphysics and physics—or am I reaching for a topic?
Jacobsen: Probably both.
Rosner: We will call it a night and let you get to the gym.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Gaming? What does she play?
Rosner: She doesn’t game, but when we went to the office supply store, they told us not to get an office chair but a gaming chair. They said it’s designed for people who spend 12 hours or more sitting, so it’d be a lot more comfortable for her.
Jacobsen: It sounds like a good chair. I spent $1,000 on mine, but it’s been in storage since I moved out of the barn. I could use it again since I’m writing so much now. It’s in two parts—I need to twist the top. It’s an IKEA thing.
Rosner: I’ve never bought a chair. I usually pick them up from the side of the road because office chairs for home use wear out quickly. This one’s been a loyal servant, but it’s getting to the point where it slowly lowers while I sit, which is annoying.
Jacobsen: So, what do you consider the greatest ergonomic invention ever? Or some of them?
Rosner: I’m not sure, but I have something semi-ergonomic to recommend. I have varicose veins in one leg, and they stripped some of them without realizing that all my veins are varicose, which made the remaining ones worse. Normally, people get varicose veins on the surface if they’ve been standing for long periods— waiters or waitresses for 20 years. But my lower leg veins are incompetent to the bone, so I have one leg that swells if I don’t wear compression socks.
Jacobsen: That sounds painful.
Rosner: It can be. But when I go to bed, I like to have my legs elevated so they can drain. If they don’t, they get swollen and purple. You’ve probably seen homeless people who sleep sitting up, and their legs turn purple and swollen, sometimes even splitting. I don’t want that. My dad had the same issue—he was a workaholic and would fall asleep at his desk every night, which caused his legs to swell.
In his later years, my dad’s legs got all purple, frustrating for the family. We kept trying to get him to stop working so a lot and take better care of himself, but he wouldn’t listen. He wasn’t getting anything done anyway—it was unnecessary. But anyway, here’s a tip: if you still have books—nobody reads books anymore because of social media and the future—but if you’ve got a couple of thick books, at least an inch to an inch and a half thick, put them under the foot of your bed between the box spring and mattress, if you have one.
Jacobsen: Why?
Rosner: Raising the foot of your bed by like 1.5 to 2 inches helps your legs drain while you sleep, so your heart doesn’t have to work as hard. You won’t notice it when lying down, but it makes a difference. It’s a simple but effective thing to do. I made the adment permanent forCarole and me—I added wooden blocks to the slats at the foot of the bed and raised it by two inches. My legs are in pretty good shape now, even though a surgeon messed up one of them.
Jacobsen: That’s a good idea. Any other ergonomic tips?
Rosner: Yes, here’s one more. It’s not an invention, something I learned the hard way: don’t jerk off to internet porn while sitting in front of a computer. It puts a lot pressure on your lower abdomen. Especially if you’re jaded and it takes a long time. Doing that, I ended up reopening an old hernia that had been repaired 35 years ago.
Jacobsen: Ouch.
Rosner: Yes, it’s better to avoid bending at the waist when doing that. It’s not the most natural position if you’re with someone and trying something exotic, fine.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What has been your experience interacting with people analytically enveloped in dogmas like Flat Earth Theory?
Rick Rosner: MAGA supporters generally tend to be more susceptible than others. I deal with that a lot because I post anti-MAGA and pro-Democrat content regularly, hoping to convince some people to vote for Democratic candidates and against Trump. Not infrequently, MAGA supporters pop up to argue with me.
I’ve had several interactions with this one lady whose Twitter handle is something like “See You Later.” If I have civil discussions with people here, I sometimes invite them to come on Lance vs. Rick. I invited her, but she must be more active in setting it up. When I invited her, she said, “Be prepared; I’m a flat-earther.”
And it turns out she is. Yesterday, as I was arguing in favour of Democratic policies, she was warning me to buy gold and silver because some big conspiracy was coming. She claimed shadowy government forces have been suppressing the true price of these metals for decades—standard conspiracy stuff. I responded, saying that we could herd an asteroid into Earth or Moon orbit in the future. We’d have all the precious metals we could ever need with a heavy metal asteroid.
Jacobsen: And her response?
Rosner: In her flat-earth way, she said, “None of that exists. Outer space doesn’t exist. Asteroids are ice and water moulded into something else.”
I have yet to have her explain the specifics to me, but it’s all an illusion I’ve brought into her mind. According to her, everyone on Earth has been tricked into believing this nonsense about space and physics, and only flat Earthers know the truth. For example, she claims rainbows are evidence of a flat Earth because they reflect some supposed deeper reality. We were talking about rainbows today—though I forget how we got on the topic—and she insists my understanding of physics can’t be true.
She argues that rainbows appear at a 42 to 45-degree angle from the sun, but then there are double rainbows, with the second rainbow at 50 degrees. Some angle of incidence or something. I explained that a double rainbow occurs when light bounces around inside water droplets more than once. It’s simple. The intense, brighter rainbow is formed when light refracts, bounces once, refracts again, and hits your eye with the sun behind you. The double rainbow is caused by light bouncing twice inside the droplet before returning to you.
But she had an issue with my use of the word “bounce.” She said, “Light doesn’t bounce.” I asked, “What made you think light doesn’t bounce?” And I explained, “Every mirror ever! Light bounces off the mirror, off the back of the mirror.” Then she replied, “That’s not bouncing; it’s reflecting.”
How do you work with that. I can post her tweets and quote-tweet them so others can see them, but let’s be honest: There aren’t many people left on Twitter since Musk bought it and drove 80% of the good folks away. Still, this lady is fun to score points off of, but trying to get her to believe anything resembling basic physics isn’t easy.
I thought we should interview her because what she’d tell us would be un anything we’ve ever heard. There are some Trump voters I can have civil discussions with on Twitter, and we probably agree on some things. I’m not super far left. I’m less left than 30% of the population, which means I’m more liberal than 40% of liberals but less liberal than 60%. I’m pretty mainstream.
Some MAGA arguments can’t persuade me because they’re so far out there—they aren’t even necessarily conservative; they’re fanatically pro-Trump. But there are some conservative ideas I can agree with. For example, Lance has an argument that’s only semi-racist—that welfare policies from the ’60s onward have been destructive to Black families because, under certain rules, you could get more money as a single person than if you had a partner living with you. If that still exists or if they’ve addressed it.
Welfare, or assistance food stamps, is essential for helping people in tough situations, even if those situations last a while. But I’m willing to hear Lance’s argument. Suppose a system perversely rewards being broken up or having only one parent. In that case, I’m open to discussing what can be done. In that way, Lance and I could have a reasonable discussion, and there’s potential for some agreement on aspects of the issue.
So, yes, I can talk with some Trump voters because only some things they believe are entirely out there. I have Trump voters in my family—I’m pretty sure. But I don’t talk to them about it because it would bum me out and piss everyone off. They vote for Trump because they’re high earners and don’t want to pay high taxes. They know he’s terrible, but they know his tax policies.
So there you go. That’s the nature of it. If someone wants to be civil, even if they don’t agree with me, or to poke fun at me gently instead of calling me nasty names, I’m fine with that, too. We can discuss more if you want.
My interactions with modern Republicans come in several varieties. There are the ones who are “fuck off to hell” types—the biggest assholes—and I mute them. Suppose someone has fewer than 1,000 followers, and all they do is retweet big accounts Libs of TikTok, Tucker Carlson, or Trump. In that case, I won’t learn anything from that person; they’ll frustrate me. So, I mute them. I mute dozens of people every day.
Rosner: But if someone has a bigger account, a unique point of view, or they tweet about more than politics— sports or TV—they’re not some MAGA idiot pumping out MAGA stuff 24/7. I won’t mute them. So, there you go.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did Lance and you meet?
Rick Rosner: I posed for him over 30 years ago. He’s an artist. He needed a model, and we became friends because he’s an interesting and smart guy. This was before he went completely off the deep end—he didn’t lose it until after 9/11. So, around 2001.
We were friends for more than a decade before that. The topic we were discussing at the end of last night’s session was about my kid. She specializes in women’s history, particularly textiles, embroidery, and needlework. She makes the point, which is valid, that women leave less of a mark on history. History is largely a record of people who have come before us.
Since men traditionally went out and engaged in public affairs while women stayed home, men left more of a historical record. Though, it’s a brutal reality for everyone. Look at the entire history of humanity. We can discuss the different eras and what kinds of records people left behind. Humanity goes back around 100,000 years, and about 110 billion people have lived here. The first 60 billion humans lived before any form of language—certainly before written language.
So, the only record from that period—stretching from 100,000 years ago or even further back, if we want to consider earlier hominids human—up until 10,000 years ago, might have been a few cave paintings. We don’t know anyone’s name from before, maybe 8,000 BC. Then came written language.
So, you get some kings, a few queens, wars, and some heroes in those wars for thousands of years. You get the names of gods, which isn’t helpful since they weren’t real people unless you believe they were based on historical figures. But the record is super spotty until, what, about 3,000 years ago? That’s when we started knowing the names of dramatists, artists, warriors, philosophers, and scientists—very few of whom were women.
Your chances of being known to history back then were slim. It might have been 1 in 5 billion or 10 billion during the pre-written language era. Then, with the advent of writing, your chances improved slightly to 1 in a few hundred million or tens of million.
Let’s say the human population around the time of Jesus was roughly a quarter of a billion, around 250 million people. Over 1,000 years, you’d have an average population of—I’m going to mess up the math because we’d also need to account for lifespan.
Forget the math. Let’s say that during the Fertile Crescent era, when early civilizations emerged in places like modern-day Iraq and Iran, as well as the Phoenicians and the Persians, the record of individuals from those times is incredibly small.
10 billion people, maybe 8 billion. From those early periods, we probably only know a few thousand names. So, suppose you divide 8 billion by 1,000. In that case, your odds of being known to history are 1 in 8 million or 1 in 5 million. Then we move to the Common Era, starting at year 0 and continuing through to, say, the Renaissance.
So, from the fall of the Roman Empire through the rise of various empires in India and China, through the Middle Ages and up to the Renaissance, you’ve got, what, another 8 to 10 billion people? And from that period, we probably know a few hundred thousand names. So, if we do the math—800,000 names out of 8 billion people—that’s 1 in 10,000. Those odds sound way too good, however. Maybe it’s closer to 1 in 20,000 or even 1 in 50,000. I’m not sure.
Then, during the Renaissance, we start having more consistent records, the Domesday Book in England, and censuses. You get records of merchants and many others—not that we know much about them except for their business transactions, court appearances, or marriage licenses. If you were a man, your odds of having your name recorded somewhere and that record surviving until today were a lot higher—maybe 1 in 3. But those odds drop to 1 in 10, 15, or even 20 if you were a woman.
Then we enter the modern era, and suddenly, everyone is on various documents. We even have photos of people from the mid to late 19th century. By the way, feel free to chime in if I’m getting something wrong. Parenthetically, I can tell when a session is more about you versus when it’s an ask session. This feels like one of those “you” sessions.
So, people start reliably leaving records of themselves—especially men—starting around the 1700s or 1800s, but still, not much personal information. Some people kept diaries, and others were described in letters. But women, again, miss out on a lot of this documentation. My kid loves it when you find a sampler made by a little girl in 1728 that is also 12-cubed.
Oh, and 1729 is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two different cubes in two different ways. Ramanujan pointed that out while talking to Hardy—that’s from around 1920. Anyway, I digress. But these records of women, samplers, aren’t satisfying by modern standards.
Then comes the watershed moment of the Internet, followed quickly by social media. We’re in the middle of that now. I’m 64, and half of my classmates are practically invisible online—they don’t engage much with the Internet, so there’s little record of them. Meanwhile, I’m all over the Internet.
You’re all over the Internet with podcasts, TV, and interviews. But if you’re a sweet church lady— some of my classmates have become, including those I used to lust after—they’ve become sweet church ladies. Maybe someone still lusts for them—their husbands or the people they see at the grocery store: my college girlfriend, Kathy.
I used to find one photo of her on the Internet if I searched hard. I last looked for her a few years ago. What happened to her? I can find no online record from the past 30 years. But people your age leave an increasingly complete record of their lives, so a lot so that there’s a Black Mirror episode where a young woman’s boyfriend dies in an accident. She’s able to virtually resurrect him through AI and the digital footprint he left on social media. There’s enough of his words and videos to create a convincing doppelganger.
Someone she could interact with via a screen. The whole episode is about how unsettling and sad that turns out to be. Then we’ve got future watersheds where people might be able to digitize their consciousnesses—not in 30 years, but maybe in 50. There’s already a sitcom about this. It only ran for two seasons—maybe one—from Greg Daniels, the creator of The Office (American version), called Upload. It’s a comedy about the process of digitizing consciousness.
It’s strange because it’s a sitcom. It has to appeal to a broad audience, including people interested in something other than the science behind it. But digitizing consciousness is now a part of our common understanding of the future that even a sitcom can make relatable. Many science fiction movies explore this idea, too, though some are lazy with it. Altered Carbon is one show that frustrates me in this regard—it’s not great sci-fi, in my opinion, even though it deals with replicable and downloadable consciousness 300 years from now.
It’s almost taken for granted now that this kind of technology will eventually happen. That’s a huge watershed because you would have a record of people down to the structure of their thoughts. They would only die if they wanted to. Their digital selves could continue as long as they wanted or as long as civilization allowed.
In the future, there could be information wars where millions, even billions, of virtual people are wiped out because their digital repositories are sabotaged. That’s not discussed much, but it’s simple science-fiction logic. Wars could be fought in the realm of information. Of course, maybe we won’t have wars anymore—that would be fantastic—but we probably will. Those wars will target stored information, including people’s digitized selves.
If people are stored digitally, the threat of war could mean the end for them. But let’s assume most people won’t be obliterated. That’s still a huge watershed moment. Then there’s the next one—the merging of consciousnesses and the budding off of new consciousnesses, which we often discuss. That would introduce entirely new ways to survive and be known, or not, as consciousness becomes more flexible. As we’ve discussed before, the uniqueness and specialness of consciousness will be significantly reduced.
So, in the future, people might care less about preserving their consciousnesses and identities for as long as possible. Humans may hold onto their individuality longer, but other entities might not be as concerned about it. They could be content with blending their awareness into some group mind or consciousness, where much of what they were is retrievable and reconstituted if needed but ultimately part of a bigger collective set of thoughts. That might become this strange kind of group mind. The end. Any comments?
Jacobsen: No comments. That seems coherent to me.
Rosner: Yes, sometimes I’ll start with a clear point I’m trying to make, but then I veer off into unprepared thoughts. It’s not intentional, but I go past where I had clear thoughts, and we sink into a lack of clarity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ll give a quick preface. The other issue you brought to mind, just as we started the call, was whether the public can make informed decisions when they need more background knowledge and processes to obtain the right information. It could lead to overload if they’re overwhelmed by misinformation from social media, demagogues, etc. This avalanche of misinformation has cascading effects in my industry and many others.
Rick Rosner: For example, today, Trump returned to a rally location where an incident reportedly clipped his ear. Whether it was a bullet or shrapnel is unclear.
Elon Musk was there with him, which is concerning because Musk is a significant source of information for many people, and he’s now heavily biased in favour of Trump. Although only some people use X (formerly Twitter) compared to other platforms, it still pumps out tremendous disinformation.
We have 31 days until the election—well, 30 now since the day is almost over. Anyone with common sense knew the day’s issues would be saturated with lies. One of the major issues is the damage and fatalities caused by Hurricane Helene and FEMA’s response. Republican and Democratic governors and officials on the ground have stated they are getting everything they need from FEMA. However, a lot misinformation is spreading, claiming that FEMA is blockading people and not providing adequate help.
There needs to be more clarity, too, about the $700 emergency assistance payment that FEMA provides for immediate needs like food, shelter, and other essentials. This has been in place for years, though the amount may have varied in the past. Misinformers on X (Twitter) are falsely claiming that people only get $700 because the U.S. gave billions to Ukraine or immigrants. None of this is true. The funds for Ukraine and immigrants are entirely separate, and any shortfall in disaster relief funds is more likely due to the increasing frequency of powerful natural disasters. However, more aid is on the way.
Look at Maui, for instance. After the horrific wildfires that killed many and destroyed thousands of homes, residents didn’t just receive $700. They have been receiving grants of tens of thousands of dollars, up to $42,000 for temporary housing, and a projected total of at least $1.3 billion in relief, with some estimates reaching $3 billion from FEMA to rebuild parts of Hawaii. It takes time to distribute these funds, but the money will continue to reach affected North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia residents in the coming weeks and months.
There’s a lot disinformation out there, mainly from Trump supporters, Russian operatives, and right-wing pundits who are rabble-rousing with lies. And with a month left until the election, they’ll continue to spread as a lot misinformation as possible. It was entirely predictable.
The specific lies are hard to predict because they’re built from current events. The end.
Rick Rosner: When I used to work at Kimmel, there was a swag corner that was mostly neglected, except by me. People would send things from their shows, books, movies, or whatever they were trying to pitch, hoping it would catch someone’s attention and be used on the show. But it never did. It just sat there on a set of bookshelves. I’d go over and see what was there. This shirt, for example, was from a show on MTV2.
The logo of MTV2 is Cerberus but with just two heads instead of the traditional three. It’s for a comedy and improv show called “Wild ‘N Out,” abbreviated as WNO.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What time are you getting up?
Rosner During the night, I wake up a couple of times. Usually, men my age wake up because they have to pee. I generally wake up because I have a dry mouth. I have this stuff to drink that makes the dry mouth disappear for a while. I might incidentally pee if I’m awake, but it’s not urgent.
Because I take a ton of fisetin, I tend to be a bit more wakeful. I also take dutasteride, which is Avodart for the prostate. So, Avodart plus fisetin means I don’t have to pee as much as some men my age. Today, I woke up at just about 6 AM. My alarm was set for 6:20.
I get up and generally eat part of a bagel with butter. I turn on the news and check my news sources, which include Drudge Report—once conservative and annoying but now pretty neutral, maybe even anti-Trump. I look at FiveThirtyEight, the poll aggregator. I also check Twitter.
Then, I got ready for one of the debate shows on PodTV. I participated in seven of these PodTV shows, where panellists debated with each other. I’ve gotten good at making my point concisely. I need to be more concise with you because I’m not fighting with anyone for talking time.
Jacobsen: I’m a patient person.
Rosner: Yeah, maybe too patient. I wish I had these skills when I was at Kimmel because we had to pitch ideas to Kimmel every day. A lot of late-night writers come from stand-up comedy. They get noticed for being funny.
I didn’t come from stand-up, but coming from stand-up helps you pitch at the table where he’s listening, along with a bunch of other people. It’s like being in the NBA—it’s some of the funniest people in America. It’s tough unless you’ve got a certain amount of stage presence. Anyway, at 7 AM, I go upstairs to the StreamYard computer.
StreamYard is a different platform than Zoom. We argue about issues for an hour. It’s usually three or four liberal guys versus a couple of conservatives. We debate the topics of the day. Earlier this week, it was the vice-presidential debate. If I’m lucky, the coffee has kicked in by the end of the show, and I’m ready for a good bowel movement. Today, though, it was just a few pellets.
So I’ve still got a bigger one in me. I take magnesium—Carole got me on it so I don’t get constipated. I’ve still got this pseudo-hernia where I had something frozen out with a liquid nitrogen needle. But it also killed the nerve that runs from my spine around to an ab muscle. So it’s still numb—today is day 77 of being knocked out. It generally takes three months for the nerve to regrow, maybe a little longer.
But anyway, I hope I get my missing ab back. I feed the dogs and call Carole, who’s 8 hours ahead of us in London, so it’s 4 PM over there. Then I try to go back to sleep. I get in bed with an old sock or a sock I’ve previously worn because I’m going to try to jerk off.
But at my age, at least half the time when I intend to jerk off, it’s a struggle. It’s always been a struggle, maybe because I started doing it too early—at about nine and a half—and now, 55 years later, I’m a little burned out. So I tried, and then I wondered if I should go to sleep. I think, Nah.
I’ll get up, look at a little smut, and try again. Eventually, I struggle my way to an orgasm and fall asleep. By the time I do, it’s after 9 AM, so I wake up at 11. I eat some Popeye’s chicken. Our local Popeye’s on Laurel Canyon sells eight for $25, which is too much for tenders.
But last night, I went over to Cousin Kenny’s for a Rosh Hashanah dinner and passed through a neighbourhood that has a sketchy Popeye’s. You can get eight tenders there for $9 instead of $25, which I need clarification on. Why such a big difference? Anyway, I appreciate that I can get tenders for about a buck apiece, plus the biscuits they throw in. So I eat some of that.
What else do I do? Oh, I tweet a lot and look at election polling statistics. I checked the University of Florida’s early voting website to see if anything made me more optimistic about the election because it was close. I found on the early voting website that women make up 53% of the early vote, which is good because women voted for Harris more than they voted for Trump.
But those statistics are from just five states out of the 24 or so that have started early voting. So, it’s yet to be indicative of a trend. In 2020, which the Democrats won, women were 52% of the vote. So I’m hoping we hold on to 53% for a few more weeks because day-of voters tend to lean Republican compared to early voters, which means they probably also lean male. I want us to build up a big surplus of women voters to feel confident.
I go back to bed again and take another nap. I’ll talk to Carole maybe before I take a nap. This time, it’s only a cursory attempt to jerk off. I know I don’t have it in me.
I sleep until 3 PM, and I take a lot of naps now. Then I feed the dogs again, which is an elaborate process because we have elderly dogs with special dietary needs. They’re also persnickety—at least one of them is. For the older dog, who has Cushing’s disease, I use cooking scissors to chop up a bunch of chicken as the base.
Then I take some chicken Gerber baby food—two spoonfuls of that—and add it to their dietary low-sodium dog food. Both dogs get that, though one dog gets three times as much because you burn more calories with Cushing’s. Then they eat.
While they’re eating, I prepare the Cushing’s pill for the older dog. I drill a hole in a teeny chunk of chicken, stuff the pill in it, and feed it to him. After that, I take them out to pee.
I tell the dogs to pee. Only one of them consistently pees inside if you don’t take her out, so she’s the one who needs to be told to pee. Sometimes she does, sometimes she doesn’t. If she pees outside, she gets a treat—these doggy bacon strips.
Then I go to the gym. I start at LA Fitness on Coldwater. I do 27 leg presses, starting at 165 pounds and building up to around 295 pounds. Somebody was on the other machine I might use—it’s a cheat day, so there’s a bench press machine.
Or no—actually, no. Someone was on the overhead press machine, so I skipped that and focused on the legs there.
Then I go to the LA Fitness on Victory, which is 2 miles away. I do 12 sets of butterflies on the butterfly machine, and 8 more sets of leg press there. Afterward, I head to the LA Fitness off Oxnard at NoHo West, the new shopping center, and do 17 sets on the ab machine. Finally, I go to the Y and do 20 sets of bench presses, finishing at 180 pounds, a new record for me on that machine, given my current body weight of about 138 pounds. That’s about 1.3 times my body weight, which would still be pathetic if I weighed more.
But given how skinny I am, 1.3 times my body weight is almost acceptable. Then I go to Planet Fitness at Laurel and Ventura and do 15 sets on the chest press and the pushdown machine, maxing out at 177.5 pounds. I come home, have a smoothie, and eat another piece of Popeye’s chicken.
What’s nice is that I took a piece of glass from the frame I bought. I collect micromosaic frames, and this one was beaten up because they’re all at least 100 years old, some more like 130 years old. The little mosaic parts fall out, and sometimes, people do a poor job of repairing them. You can’t see it here, but this particular repair was badly done—the person didn’t put the glass pieces back. They used plaster or clay material in the gaps and then painted them to resemble mosaics.
Tonight, if I’m awake enough, I’ll take a dental tool and start chipping away at the repair to replace the parts correctly with glass mosaic tiles. Also, the oval piece that covers the frame part where the picture goes was probably broken at some point. Whoever repaired it likely nipped a piece of glass to fit the oval space and probably wasn’t using a glass cutter—maybe nippers or even pliers.
So it was jagged. A nice small project while I was eating dinner was using a whetstone, which is normally used for sharpening knives. I’ve wrecked mine because I use it for filing down mosaic tiles and framing glass to smooth out some of the jagged edges. It was unnecessary, but it gave me something to do while I ate dinner and watched “The Lego Batman Movie,” which was pretty decent.
Then, it was time to talk with you.
I took one for a bowel movement, but it was still pellets. So I still have a giant one, hoping it will come out eventually.
Jacobsen: What do you find, capacity-wise—mentally, physically, sensation-wise—has declined the most with age? What are the most marked changes?
Rosner: I’ve mentioned that my willingness to waste hundreds of hours on IQ tests has declined. I’ve ruled against it now. It seems like a terrible waste of time because the odds of outscoring my established high score on, say, a Cooijmans test are not high. I might still be as smart, but it’s hard to score high on a Cooijmans test. He’s one of the few who offers tests with ceilings above my highest score, so that’s been a kind of decline for me.
My reading has also declined for several reasons. One is that when I was younger, I got a reading done while working as an art model. As a younger model, I’d do crazy poses—just insane poses that took a lot of flexibility and strength. Eventually, I found a few poses that required flexibility but allowed me to hold a book simultaneously. Or if I were modelling for a painting, where I’d be posing for 20 to 25 hours, I’d try to incorporate a book into the pose, which some teachers would allow.
I could plow through many books that way, especially if the pose were painful because I’d read harder and faster to distract myself from the pain, right? But I don’t model anymore. Another place I used to read was at the gym. I wasn’t a jerk about it.
I’d spend less time reading between sets than the people who waste time on their phones between sets. I’d spend at most 20 seconds between sets reading. I’m a fast reader, so I could finish a page, or at least half a page, in those 20 seconds. But it would still piss people off.
People who thought nothing of others being on their phones at the gym would get offended when they saw me reading. They’d approach me and ask, “Are you using this?” They wouldn’t wait to see if I was doing sets. If they waited another 10 seconds, they’d see I was in the middle of a set. But people are stupid—jerks.
When COVID hit, I wanted to get in and out of the gym as fast as possible because, again, people are jerks and might be there with COVID. So, I stopped reading at the gym. Then I stopped reading at home, and for the same reason, I stopped taking IQ tests—it feels like I don’t have time to waste.
I don’t want to spend four or three hours reading books—maybe not even 90 minutes. And my patience for books has declined, just like it has for everyone else. We were talking about this last night at dinner. The deal is, when you Google something now, you’re familiar with this, right?
You Google something, and half the time, Google will use AI to write you two or more paragraphs answering the question it assumes you’re asking based on your query. Right? So you get the information. Google has become even more powerfulthan it used to be.
But I’ve had times where Google got it wrong. For example, I once tried to find the exact definition of “accursed.” I’d tweeted about Trump being accused of sexually assaulting and harassing 26 women, and some MAGA idiot wrote back. He meant to write “accused, not convicted,” but he wrote “accursed, not convicted.”
I loved that—it was my favorite tweet. So I was trying to find the exact definition of “accursed” to make fun of the guy by pasting it. But instead of giving me the definition, Google gave me biblical uses of the word.
I’ve tweeted a few times about how I wish Jesus would rapture all the world’s jerks to Europa, the ice moon of Jupiter. Europa is said to have fairly livable conditions. I guess its radioactive center makes it somewhat warm. So maybe Jesus could dig some ice caves for the world’s biggest jerks.
Anyway, I wonder if Google is spying on me. It probably saw me tweeting about Jesus and assumed I was religious. So when I searched for “accursed,” it gave me the Bible’s word usage.
But back to the main point: you can go online now and instantly get what you want to know. In the olden days, you had to go to the library. As a kid, I’d ride my bike or have my parents drive me to the library. We had a good library—it probably had about 150,000 to 200,000 books, which is still not enough compared to today.
Now, 50 million to 100 million books are distilled into articles online.
So back then, you had to hope that something close to the answer you needed could be found in one of the three books they had on the subject you were working on. But now, we don’t need books. Google spits it right into your eyes like a mother bird feeding a baby bird, which works against my patience with books. Also, Carole and I watch a ton of premium TV every night. The deal with books is that one person wrote it, and another person edited it, and those people may be interested in something other than what I care about regarding the plot. So there’s often much stuff I want to skip over, or at least skim, because it’s not engaging.
On the other hand, good TV has been filtered through the sensibilities and instincts of a dozen people—execs giving notes, etc. It often takes years for a show to be developed. Some of the most talented writers aren’t writing books—they’re writing for TV. The best TV, as I said, has been filtered through many people to ensure everything is as good as possible. So, generally, the dialogue on a good TV show is better than the dialogue in a book. All this works against me wanting to read books. I used to read 5 or 6 books a week, and now I’m down to maybe two books a month, some of which are graphic novels because they’re easier to get through since they’re essentially shorter.
I still think about physics. My ability to think about it has not been hampered. My ability to do anything about it or make headway in convincing others—except maybe you—has never been great. But my ability to write… I’m a good writer and editor, but my output of long-form writing outside of Twitter is way down. It makes me wonder if I’ve lost something essential, if I’m blocked, or if I’m just lazy.
So those are three areas that have declined.
Do you notice any changes in your intellectual abilities as you move from your twenties into your thirties?
Jacobsen: I feel more relaxed. I feel more like myself. I don’t feel like I have to prove myself as much. I feel like producing something good, even in a small way, is good enough. My self-care is way better now.
I know when to take care of myself. It’s not overwhelming self-confidence, but I don’t drive myself as crazy as I might have in a previous decade. Sure, I work hard, but I know when to take a break, and I do. I still work long hours all week, but I’ve learned to balance things better. I might watch The Lord of the Rings—a simple tale of good and evil, crafted by a Catholic like Tolkien—but I enjoy that.
Rosner: Does your family or mom know how hard you work?
Jacobsen: I don’t think so. I don’t think many people do. I don’t think anyone does. I keep that pretty low-key myself.
Rosner: It’s a weird thing. It’s not weird that you’re weird—it’s just how life works. You generate hundreds of thousands of words a year, maybe even a million, through interviews and other journalism.
If someone noticed this, I’m sure the people you submit work to—like The Good Men Project, for instance—or anyone you generate content for must be delighted with your output. But that’s a professional relationship, and they probably don’t go around saying, “Wow!”
Or they do, but still, it’s their job. Do they go home and tell their partners, “There’s this one guy, and he’s just a machine”?
Jacobsen: Also, professional relationships shouldn’t necessarily come with the expectation of praise, right? The expectation is that you are to produce a product. They are to consider it and publish it—maybe, maybe not. Then, you move on to the next piece. Right?
Rosner: Yeah, exactly. At some point, I can imagine somebody asking, “You’ve got a sister, right?”
Jacobsen: I have a sister and a brother. They all know what I do, but they’re family.
Rosner: They think, “Scott went to Ukraine. What the hell was he doing there? I guess he worked at a horse farm or something, talks to people, and writes online articles.”
You can imagine their shock if, at some point, someone went to them and said, “How does it feel to be related to one of the most productive journalists in the world?” They’d be like, “What? We thought he was hanging out, talking to people.”
Jacobsen: Yeah. So, I’ll be house-sitting for a neighbour this weekend, caring for their dogs. And I’ve got a good opportunity coming up where I got selected again. I’m going to a graduate-level journalism training seminar. They fly you out, pay for your hotel, food, flight back, and the trainers who come to teach you. You go to these things, and there are journalists from various political stripes and publications. I recognized several names. When I went to the one last year, you had to apply and get selected. I got selected last year and again this time. So, I’ll be attending again. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Rosner: That’s great! So, when you go to these things, I’m sure there are plenty of legit, objective journalists. But do you also bump into biased journalists from propaganda outlets like The Gateway Pundit?
Jacobsen: Not The Gateway Pundit, no. I’ve communicated and interacted with people who, within liberal circles, would be considered part of propaganda outlets. It’s probably tier 2 in terms of their online circulation. But during the training, I interact with them as individuals who happen to work at these places, and we’re all learning the same material. It’s just professional development for journalists. And then there are people like me who apply under the freelance, independent title.
Rosner: But enough about that—since this session is a bit of an odds-and-ends conversation, let me brag about my kid. Her hands are on the cover of Archaeology Magazine this month, holding a slip of cut paper with a design on it. She’s a specialist in the products created by schoolgirls, typically embroidered and sewn items from the early modern period—which generally starts in the Renaissance, maybe the 15th or 16th century, and extends into the 19th century.
Her expertise also includes other craft projects using wax, shellwork, cardboard, mica for shininess, and all sorts of materials. She worked at this place—what was the name of it? It’s in England and London and has been used since the 1700s. In the 17th or 18th century, it was a girls’ school, and the floorboards had gaps.
Jacobsen: That’s incredible! So, did they discover something in the gaps?
Rosner: Over time, objects like these intricate, handmade crafts had fallen between the floorboards, preserving them for centuries. She was involved in researching and handling these historic finds, which is how her hands ended up on the cover of Archaeology Magazine. It’s pretty cool.
Nothing big—nothing you’d fall into. But if you were working on a fussy craft project and there was a quarter-inch gap between the floorboards, over the decades—maybe centuries—a girl might drop something she was making, and it would slip through the crack to the floor below. They were doing a renovation and found all these scraps of paper that were 300 years old. They called in Isabella because this is her wheelhouse—identifying these kinds of scraps—and it turned into a whole exhibition.
One of her key points is that history tends to erase all but the most prominent figures. And even then, men get erased a lot less than women because men manage the affairs of the world. They left legal records, signed documents, and generated most of the official paperwork. So we know a lot more about men in, say, the 17th and 18th centuries than we do about women—except for the Quakers, maybe, because they were meticulous record keepers and letter writers.
But for most women throughout history, it’s tough to find much. Isabella specializes in using household products, embroidery, and craft projects to piece together what the lives of girls and women were like. So they called her in, and she was the expert on these scraps. They ended up turning the scraps into a whole exhibition, which is pretty cool.
Archaeology Magazine discussed how this discovery offers a new angle on the lives of girls—these paper scraps that, by accident, survived for three centuries.
Let’s end this call. Another issue around women that Isabella pointed out is how they’ve been historically shortchanged. During her undergrad, or maybe when she was getting her master’s, she wrote about a problem that still exists today—women don’t have pockets. Women get super excited when a dress comes with pockets, but that’s been an issue for centuries. Where do women carry things?
And there’s also the theory—sorry, I know we’re almost out of time—from women’s studies that suggest women’s attire makes it easier for them to be sexually assaulted. It’s harder to run away in spiky heels, and dresses can be lifted easily to access parts of the body. So there’s been institutionalized repression and sexism even in everyday clothing. History messes everyone over, but it messes women over harder.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We can wrap it up or check for any new Trump news on the AP wire: Kris Kristofferson has died. Any reflections? Yes, he was a great guy in my mind. He passed at 88, so at least he lived a long life.
Rick Rosner: He was a true hero in many ways. He started as an all-American guy and was incredibly accomplished in many areas. He was a high school and college football quarterback, became a Rhodes Scholar, earned a degree from Oxford University, and became a helicopter pilot in the military—if I remember correctly, for the Army. He even got an appointment to teach at West Point. Still, he turned it down and enraged his family because he wanted to pursue a rock and roll and country music career.
Eventually, he became one of the greatest singer-songwriters of the 1970s. He wrote Me and Bobby McGee, Janis Joplin’s biggest hit. He had a career as a singer and guitarist that lasted for decades and stood up for liberal causes. Though it might be apocalyptic, I saw a story on Twitter about Willie Nelson’s birthday concert.
Supposedly, backstage at the concert, Toby Keith told Kris Kristofferson, “None of your lefty stuff out there.” Kristofferson was like, “What?” And then Keith got in his face and asked, “Did you ever serve your country? Did you ever take a paycheck for killing someone in defence of it?” And Kristofferson responded, “No, you didn’t.” But this story feels a bit suspect because Kristofferson never served in Vietnam. However, he was in the military as an instructor stateside.
Regardless, Kristofferson was a talented guy who stood up for his beliefs. He was in one of my wife’s favourite movies, the 1970s version of A Star is Born, which starred Barbra Streisand. That movie’s been made four times—once in the 1920s as a silent film, in the 1950s with Judy Garland, in the 1970s with Streisand, and more recently with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. Each version has been pretty good.
So, rest in power—are we allowed to say that for white guys?
Jacobsen: You can. It’s up to you.
Rosner: Yeah, it’s a mutual outlook. What do you think of Kristofferson?
Jacobsen: I didn’t know a lot about him. He’s way before my time. Wasn’t he in Blade?
Rosner: Yes, he was in Blade. He was in dozens of movies, actually, and he had a great look. He would’ve been perfect for playing a vampire hunter in Blade—he kept his hair and stayed in good shape.
Jacobsen: I remember watching Blade in 1998. Great movie.
Rosner: Yeah, he had a great look. He kept all his hair, stayed fit, and never got fat. Carol and I watched Wolves withBrad Pitt and George Clooney last night. Pitt is 60, Clooney is 63, and they still look great. If you keep your hair and are good-looking in your forties, you’ll still look good in your sixties. Michael Keaton hasn’t kept his hair, but he still looks great because he’s got a good face and has been in excellent movies.
Kristofferson would’ve made a great vampire fighter in black leather because he kept his hair and stayed lean.
Rick Rosner: Let’s talk about Trump. He’s been saying some crazy stuff recently.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the craziest thing he’s said in the last day or so?
Rosner: He said we could get rid of crime by having a “day of violence” with no rules. Some compare it to The Purge.
But he’s a presidential candidate. The trouble with Trump is that he’s always said crazy things, and people try to excuse it by saying he’s just being funny and that he’s a funny guy. But he’s not funny—he’s an asshole.
If any other candidate suggested something like a “day of violence” or a nationwide “violence day,” it would be immediately disqualifying. On top of that, he’s said Kamala Harris is “mentally disabled,” “mentally handicapped,” or something to that effect. Essentially, he’s calling her “retarded.” While it’s not as severe as calling for Kristallnacht, it’s still completely unacceptable and not normal.
What frustrates me is that the media hasn’t reported much on the “day of violence” comments. I haven’t seen any major American news outlets covering it; I’ve only seen clips on Twitter. Maybe it happened too late, and we’ll see reports tomorrow. But that doesn’t make sense because, in England, they were reporting on it at 4 AM. So, you can’t blame the time of day for this lack of coverage.
There should be tons of reporting on it, and it should all condemn this rhetoric. But will we see major news sources denouncing it? I’m still determining. Even if they did, which they won’t, I’m not convinced it would make any difference. In 2016, 600 newspapers nationwide endorsed Hillary Clinton, and fewer than a dozen endorsed Trump. Because of Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric. But it wasn’t enough to stop him from winning the election.
Rick Rosner: I want to talk about crystallized versus fluid intelligence, which is part of the same broad theories related to IQ. Fluid intelligence is raw problem-solving ability at its peak in young adults. The trade-off is that, as you acquire wisdom—knowledge-based expertise—this becomes crystallized intelligence.
As you learn more and your brain ages, fluid intelligence is replaced by crystallized intelligence. But this raises the question: “Am I getting dumber as I get older?” There’s a stereotype, and I’m sure some biological arguments support it, that exceptionally smart people tend to do their best work in their twenties or maybe thirties.
Take Einstein, for example. He was born in 1879, and by 1905, at age 26, he had developed special relativity along with three other groundbreaking theories—though ironically, he didn’t win the Nobel Prize for special relativity. Instead, he won it for the photoelectric effect, a discovery made in that same period. Ten years later, at 36, he developed general relativity. After that, while he did other important things—like contributing to quantum mechanics and statistical physics—he didn’t have any more groundbreaking discoveries. He lived until 1955, so for the last half of his life, there weren’t many notable scientific breakthroughs.
Similarly, Newton developed his mathematical and scientific principles in his twenties yet lived into his eighties—an unusually long life in the 1600s and 1700s. In his later years, he wasn’t as engaged in groundbreaking math or science. Instead, he ran the Royal Mint and made contributions, such as inventing coin “milling” (adding ridges to the sides of coins to prevent people from filing them down for precious metals). Later in life, Newton also engaged in personal feuds and political struggles. He wasn’t doing much innovative science at that point.
Darwin, on the other hand, went on the Beagle, a five-year voyage around the world, where he gathered the data and observations that would form the basis of his theory of evolution. However, he sat on the theory for about 20 years, developing his arguments until his friends—particularly Alfred Russel Wallace—developed a similar theory. Pressured, Darwin finally published On the Origin of Species in 1859. He then spent the rest of his life defending his work, writing more books on related topics, and continuing his scientific observations. He was famously meticulous. For instance, he studied how flagstones in his garden gradually sank into the ground, attributing it to earthworms chewing through the soil underneath.
Darwin was also a gradualist. He believed the Earth was incredibly old and its geological features formed gradually over millions of years. By the 1880s, Darwin was among the few who understood the immense age of the Earth. He rejected the theories of the time that suggested the Sun was powered by chemical burning or gravitational contraction, which implied it could only last about 20 to 50 million years. Darwin argued that the Sun and Earth must be far older to account for his observed processes.
So, did any of these people feel like their mental faculties were declining or that they couldn’t develop new ideas like they used to? I don’t think so. Take Feynman, for example. He remained mentally sharp and continued to innovate well into his later years. He was known for doing physics in unconventional places—like strip clubs, where he was famously uninhibited.
He would sit in the back and jot things down on napkins. He started sketching people, which became an excuse to look at naked women—not just naked art models. But I’ve never seen anything in the literature. However, I haven’t searched deeply for it, where renowned creative people complained about their brains deteriorating to the point where they couldn’t create anymore. But I wonder about myself.
Not that I’ve accomplished much—certainly not that I’ve developed a grand theory of the universe—but I have a theory that hasn’t been widely circulated or evaluated. It’s not very math-heavy, though it probably should be. I used to write jokes for late-night shows, and I think I’m a better joke writer now than when I was getting paid for it. I was just fortunate to be paid at the time.
But I’m confident I could still contribute to a late-night show if I had the good fortune to be hired by one. So, how do I feel about my fluid intelligence? Has it declined? Though somewhat ridiculously, my intelligence has been measured through dozens of IQ tests. However, these tests require more than 100 hours of work to do well.
My tolerance for spending so much time on such a task has diminished because I’m 64, and I shouldn’t waste my remaining time on that nonsense. There was a test I started years ago and got about halfway through, where I’d done quite a bit of work. The only reason I would take an IQ test now is if it offered the potential to score higher than my previous record- around 196, maybe 192—somewhere in the 190s.
So, to take another test, I would need to get a chance to score at least 198 or even 200, assuming a standard deviation of 16. Or are we talking about 15? I’ve scored six standard deviations above the mean.
Anyway, I again picked up this one test, the Cooijmans test, about a year ago. I looked it over to see if I could answer enough questions correctly to set a new personal high score and regain the number one spot in the world. But then I got distracted by other things and set it aside again. The thing about Cooijmans’ tests is that you rarely score as well as you think you will, and he loves that about them.
I admire it. I know he strives for validity, even in the strange world of ultra-high IQ tests, which means he isn’t generous with scores. But would I still perform well if I took these IQ tests again? Have my skills declined? I don’t think so, but maybe that’s a reflection of the test not measuring what it claims to measure. I’ve found that the key to success on these tests is persistence—trying a zillion different approaches to the hardest problems.
Is coming up with a zillion different ideas fluid intelligence? Or is it about looking around for analogies in the world that can be applied to a problem? In many ways, you’re profiling the test and the test maker as much as solving the problems themselves. But then again, what were super-smart people like Einstein and Newton doing?
And is that what anyone doing creative work is doing—looking for associations, developing new patterns, and observing new consistencies in the world or their imagination? So, to return to the original question: am I getting dumber?
Most of what I do, and the main creative work in my day, isn’t creative. It’s mostly tweeting random stuff. I’ve also been working on this book for years, and I need to spend more time writing sentences instead of just coming up with new ideas. I need to translate the ideas into actual prose. Am I being lazier about that than I should be because my mental abilities have declined?
I don’t think so. I’ve been editing my wife’s book, and my editing skills aren’t any worse than ever. I’m a good editor, so I haven’t noticed any decline in my mental faculties.
What I have noticed is a laziness. I’m sleeping more. Is that because I’m depressed? Is it because I’m not drinking enough coffee? Is it something else?
Is it because I’m working out more? I joined another gym, so now I’m working out an average of more than six times a week when I used to work out five times a week. Is that making me more tired? Have my mental skills declined compared to other people my age, 64?
Because I work out six times a week, I’ve gotten skinnier, against my will. During the Trump years—these years included—I lost a lot of weight, partly because I was having stomach issues all the time and couldn’t keep the weight on. So now, at 5’10.5″, I got on the scale yesterday and was 139 pounds, with socks and pants on. That’s skinny, but it’s probably easier on my body than carrying an extra 20 or 25 pounds of muscle would be.
So, I am still trying to figure out the answers. Do you think I’ve gotten dumber?
Jacobsen: I would go with your earlier assessment: you used to be crazier. Now, you’re less crazy but also less motivated. In other words, lazy has replaced crazy.
Rosner: At least they rhyme. But was I crazy or more agitated and vocal about it?
Jacobsen: I agree with your assessment and don’t want to offend you. I remember comparing yourself with Grigori Perelman regarding appearance, which was an offense.
Rosner: You said I look a bit like him.
Jacobsen: So I’d chalk it up to cooling down with age. You haven’t done anything drastic. An inflection point was probably the cancer scare. That rearranged your whole schedule with pills and supplements. It didn’t change your exercise routine too much. But you take more naps now and don’t take those IQ tests anymore.
Rosner: I recently found a simpler test, which I’ve been working on.
I want to spend less than 100 or 200 hours on a test, and this one doesn’t require that much time. I’ve only got three more problems to crack, so I may finish it soon.
Jacobsen: But to finalize the answer to your question, I’d say you’re no longer taking the tests as seriously. You have an adult daughter and other things going on. Then, there’s the fact that you’re getting older, the cancer scare, and how it shook up some of your rigid systems. You’ve also become more comfortable with taking naps. So, it’s a combination of things that reflect the transition from “crazy” to “lazy.”
It’s more about being attuned to self-care now, which is more reasonable. You once made an argument, around the time of your cancer diagnosis, that part of the problem might have been overloading your kidneys due to working out so much, especially with the muscle-building exercises and the strain on your body from processing all that muscle mass.
You speculated that this overwork might have contributed to the cancer.
Rosner: I said, “Hell no.” But, if you work out a lot, you expel a lot of creatinine. Creatinine is a waste product from working your muscles hard, and that stuff can build up. It’s also a cheap measure of how well your kidneys are functioning. But there are more expensive blood tests that tell you more directly how well your kidneys are doing.
For most people, the amount of creatinine in their system indicates kidney function. The more waste in your blood, the less efficiently your kidneys work. But extreme exercise can throw off that measurement. So the question is, does it mess up your kidneys too?
There’s a point where extreme exertion, like rhabdomyolysis (rhabdo)—which some CrossFitters experience—can send your body into toxic shock. In that case, yes, it’s damaging your kidneys. But I’m not sure if it’s just raising your creatinine slightly out of the normal range. Maybe I have sensitive kidneys. So, yes, that’s my sense of being less crazy now.
I was talking with Carole about this, about my craziness. My wife has been writing a semi-biography of my mom because she found a trove of old love letters. We talked about how my mom had many disappointments in her life, including me, during my crazy years. I was super gifted as a kid, but I messed everything up. I was cutting scars into myself to look badass and stripping instead of going to Harvard. That was incredibly disappointing and distressing for my mom and stepdad.
But my argument is that I did much crazy stuff. Still, it eventually led me to become a successful comedy writer. Some people are just crazy and keep getting into trouble, sabotaging their lives because their minds are not working in a way that helps them navigate the world.
There’s a crazy where your brain isn’t functioning properly, and you’re constantly hurting yourself and others—like someone walking down the street, screaming nonsense. My craziness was more about coming up with weird, often misguided, ideas to address real issues I thought I needed to fix. One of those issues was finding a partner—getting a girlfriend or, eventually, a wife.
I had all sorts of crazy plans for this. Some were stupid, like the scars. Others weren’t so bad, like lifting weights to develop a decent-looking body. That helped me get laid a few times and made me more presentable. It was part of a larger effort not to look terrible. For a while, I looked pretty good. You can’t tell in this lighting because it makes my hair look like crap. I also haven’t trimmed my beard or bothered to groom myself, but I’d still look pretty good for 64 if I tried. So that part wasn’t entirely insane. I took it too far, sure, but it wasn’t wild in the schizophrenic sense, where I was hearing voices or thinking famous people were talking to me.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s a bigger talking point in propagandistic conservative media right now: trans issues or immigration?
Rick Rosner: Trans comes up a lot, and it’s a bullshit issue in that it doesn’t affect—well, both issues you mentioned, trans and immigration, neither of them significantly affect most Americans’ lives. Trans people are less than 1% of the population, and people who are nonbinary are just a few percent. But who fucking cares?
It’s something conservatives bring up to show how “crazy” liberals have gotten. But it’s bullshit. A Pew Research study from 2022 shows that Republicans in government have drifted four times as far to the right as Democrats have drifted left. The only reason trans issues are even in the spotlight is that people are more aware of trans folks now than they were ten years ago when most trans people were in the closet.
Rosner: When you’re aware of trans people, and they’re out of the closet, you have to develop policies around things like bathrooms and sports. But these are trivial issues—maybe not for trans people, but in terms of the impact on most Americans’ lives. Conservatives try to weaponize it in the culture war. In terms of fear-mongering, I hear more about immigration, but that’s also a bullshit issue, especially compared to Europe.
In the U.S. a hundred years ago, about 14% of Americans were foreign-born. Today, that number is still 14%. Our replacement rate for births is slightly over two children per woman, which is necessary to maintain a stable population. But now, we’re at 1.62. People have fewer babies per capita than at any other point in American history, so the only reason our population is stable or slightly growing, at less than half a percent per year, is immigration. We’re not being overrun. Europe is dealing with a far greater number of immigrants and refugees, especially because it’s geographically closer to Africa.
Take the U.K., for example. In the past decade, the percentage of Muslims in England has gone from 4.9% to 6.9%, largely due to immigration. Compare that to the U.S., where the Muslim population is around 1%. So if you’re going to freak out about that—like Lance does—it’s a much smaller issue here. If you’re one of those scared-of-Muslims types, we have a much lower percentage, and we’re not being overrun.
Then there’s this ridiculous claim some Republicans have been spreading recently—that Haitians are kidnapping and eating people’s pets. It’s 100% not true, but it gets attention. We’ve heard that nonsense a ton lately.
But again, that is a complete lie. So much of the stuff about immigration is a lie, like the claim that crime is out of control. Crime is way down in the U.S. Year over year, murder in the U.S. has dropped 11.6%, the biggest drop in 20 years. Overall, crime is down 50% over the past 30 years. As I’ve said before, one reason is that when fewer people are on the streets, it’s hard to have street crime.
Over the past 30 years, we’ve spent more time at home because we can do so much through the Internet and our devices. Plus, nobody carries cash anymore. So crime is not exploding. Immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans. There’s just so much fear-mongering and lies being spread.
As discussed over the past week, MAGA supporters are willingly gullible. They believe all kinds of nonsense. One of the craziest things they believe is that Trump is a good person and that anything bad you hear about him is just made-up stuff from liberals, which is pure bullshit. Trump has been a bad guy his entire life. The first time the FBI investigated him was in 1972 for racial discrimination in renting out Trump properties.
They sent in undercover testers—Black people and white people. The Black people were told there were no apartments available, while the white people were told there were apartments for rent. This investigation led to the Department of Justice suing Trump and his dad, and they settled. He’s been involved in sketchy, criminal, and just plain bad behaviour for over 50 years. He’s been involved in over 4,900 lawsuits.
One of the ways he gets out of paying his legitimate bills is by saying, “Sue me.” People take him to court, and then he sends his lawyers in, who say, “This will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation, so just take a third of what we promised to pay.” People settle because they can’t afford the legal fight. Many of the lawsuits he was involved in were from when he owned casinos, where he sued deadbeat gamblers who had gambled on credit and didn’t want to pay up. But still, the number of lawsuits he’s been involved in, outside of that, is more than the next four most litigious real estate developers combined. He’s a piece of shit, and he proves it every day.
I just saw on SNL that during their opening episode—celebrating the 50th anniversary—they noted that just 2 or 3 hours earlier, at a rally, Trump said that Kamala Harris is mentally disabled. He constantly says crazy, shitty stuff. He barely spends time running for president; instead, he focuses on scams like selling overpriced merchandise. He just launched a new Trump watch—the fanciest one sells for $100,000 but only contains about $13,000 worth of gold and diamonds.
He also launched a coin and a cryptocurrency, and his wife is selling a $600 gold-plated medallion, which contains almost no actual gold. It’s all huckster crap, but MAGA supporters don’t care. He doesn’t lose votes among them. I started ranting about MAGAs again, but it’s because they believe so much nonsense.
Dr. Ramani Durvasula is a licensed clinical psychologist in Los Angeles, CA, Professor Emerita of Psychology at California State University, Los Angeles, and the Founder and CEO of LUNA Education, Training & Consulting. She is an author of several books including Should I Stay or Should I Go: Surviving A Relationship with a Narcissist, and “Don’t You Know Who I Am?”: How to Stay Sane in an Era of Narcissism, Entitlement, and Incivility. The focus of Dr. Durvasula’s clinical, academic and consultative work is the etiology and impact of narcissism and high-conflict, entitled, antagonistic personality styles on human relationships, mental health, and societal expectations. Her work has been featured at SXSW, TEDx, Red Table Talk, the Today Show, and Investigation Discovery. You can also find her on YouTube where she has accumulated millions of views on her videos discussing narcissism on her successful channel, and on social media @DoctorRamani. Now she will be adding the role of host to her resume as she launches her new podcast, Navigating Narcissism with Dr. Ramani, a show that focuses on narcissism and its impact on relationships.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so today we are here with Dr. Ramani Durvasula. So we’re going to talk about a few things, more in a constructive frame, which I think is important because with the work that you do and have specialized in–there’s a lot of darker facets of it, which can be a bummer. So in terms of things that might be considered, say, a counter to this, as you’ve presented in some of your videos, which would be in one word, authenticity. How do we present ourselves in our lives in terms of just living out more authentically?
Dr. Ramani Durvasula: So there’s lots of different ways to live more authentically. I mean, you’ve got to remember, this is an intra-psychic process first, right? So we have to have plumbed the depths of ourselves to figure out who we are, what we’re about, our values, again, connecting into really what we’re about. How do we show up as more authentic? It’s not being performative. It’s touching back in with ego versus us genuinely wanting to be a part of the conversation.
It is also, I think in many ways, one thing that thwarts authenticity in a social situation is anxiety, right? So the more anxious we become, in some ways, the more distance we get from our authentic selves. In fact, Carl Rogers would argue that anxiety is a symptom of not being able to live in our authentic self, right? So that’s really what anxiety is. And so when we are anxious, and that could be created because we feel we’re being evaluated, because we might place certain kinds of importance on the people we’re talking to, we’re trying to impress the people, or we somehow might feel judged, or whatever the reason is, the social milieu is bringing up anxiety. Those are often times we won’t be authentic.
And whatever that looks like is going to vary. Like I said, in some cases, it might be that we’re performative. In some cases, we’re talking more about what we do rather than who we are. And I think that difference of talking about who we are rather than what we do, which is why you’ll see one of the kind of experiments that’s often floated in certain organizations, or like when you’re getting to know a new group, is in the first six hours, no one’s allowed to talk about what they do for a living. You just have to talk; you have to be in the moment, and so that kind of thing will lend itself to authenticity.
The less we fall into what we do for a living, or our titles, or any of that, and the more we stay present in a given moment, how we’re feeling, or commenting on the avocado, or I don’t care for cilantro,” or whatever it may be, we actually do show up more authentically. And those are some of the things we can do to show up authentically. I also think that– and this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion–is honoring, if we feel a discomfort, someone brings out a discomfort in us, whatever it may be, it may be because they’re behaving badly, it may be because they are antagonistic, or dominating the conversation. It could be that they represent something that we still haven’t fully worked through.
I often tell people it’s okay at those times if you feel like you don’t have to force yourself to participate, because I think a lot of authenticity, again, goes back to that anxiety, forcing ourselves to interact with people whose conduct is making us uncomfortable. And so, I think all of those things can contribute to it, but, really, it’s that alignment of focusing more on the moment, and talking about who we are, what we stand for, versus what we do.
Jacobsen: And this getting in touch with being more genuine and in the moment.
Durvasula: Yes, it’s more genuine in the moment.
Jacobsen: When someone is doing this and hasn’t been doing as fully as they could, and doesn’t have any formal diagnosis of a problem, but instead shows patterns of people-pleasing or living slightly into a false self, what might be some potential consequences, socially or some of their professional life, if they begin living more authentically over time, more in touch with their true self–so to speak?
Durvasula: As a person starts living authentically over time, I don’t think everyone is fully prepared for all the consequences. In some ways, people will experience a greater sense of inner peace. They’ll feel more settled, more in tune with their bodies, and they may dread certain interactions less, or have fewer of them altogether. As a person becomes more authentic, I actually think they’re going to lose people. Their social circle will narrow, and they’ll find themselves with more time on their hands, because they’ll start saying, “No, that doesn’t feel authentic.”
They may even end up making less money, as they might turn down opportunities that aren’t aligned with their sense of self, with their value system, with their meaning and purpose. I always say, “If you’re really on this quest for authenticity, everything is about to get a whole hell of a lot smaller outside of you, and a whole hell of a lot bigger inside of you.”
Jacobsen: What are the consequences in that intra-psychic realm, in what we would term “mental health”?
Durvasula: Well, again, if you look at a humanistic, Rogerian conception of mental health, humanists didn’t really talk about “mental illness.” There was no such thing. We focused on how we are buffeted by the conditions placed on us by the world. Those disconnects of having to please the demands of the world, is what were causing this anxiety in us. Basically, it’s us being commanded to be something other than what we truly are in order to be accepted by the world.
That would be the closest definition of mental illness a humanist would ever float. They wouldn’t view a person as “mentally ill”. This is why I’ve always adhered to a humanistic framework. It is the conditions of the world around them. If a person is able to work more towards that authenticity, you’re asking if they can live more authentically, where that will take them. I think you will see an abating of anxiety. You will see a mental clarity.
It will be balanced. I have gotten some pushback from undergraduate and graduate students for 22 years. “Does being authentic mean you just go into a room and say whatever you want?”
I said, “No, an authentic person can still read a room. But after reading the room and recognizing, ‘I need to be careful about what I say here.” They may also make the assessment, ‘I don’t know how much longer I want to stay in this room,’ or, ‘I may not come into a room like this again,’” right? An authentic person is not an unhinged person. They’re a very clear person. The best way I can describe it, and I’m drawing this from embodied trauma work, is that they feel more in their bodies—they feel more in alignment with themselves.
I think you will see a greater sense of well-being, probably a greater sense of expressed gratitude. You might see higher happiness scores. You’re definitely going to see lower anxiety. You’ll see a lower ego, however that gets quantified. There’s going to be less of that need to prove oneself. In fact, you’re probably going to see far, far less antagonism, because an authentic person doesn’t need to get into an argument with someone. “I know who I am. I know what I am about.” If someone has a different opinion, they can coexist with that opinion and not feel driven by ego to convince the other person otherwise. That’s a pretty damn peaceful way to live.
Jacobsen: I’ll share something from my own experience. I have this in print. I grew up in an alcoholic home, in a divorced family. I cut contact about nine years about with my father after receiving some messages and dealing with some family events that required the police. I was kicked out of the house around age 14. When I came back, basically, families, understandably, distanced themselves from that type of home–so to speak.
When I came back, age 14 after a couple months of being kicked out,, in the small town where I grew up in, I became friends with some near-retired or retired people at a small, little restaurant called Veggie Bob’s with the number 604-888-1223. I recall something you were saying, which was noteworthy, in some of your audiovisual presentations about people you have noticed who are authentic, typically, are older, something around 50.
Durvasula: I have to say: I haven’t met many people much south of 50 who are truly authentic. But I’ve seen quite a few who become more authentic as they get older.
Jacobsen: Those individuals I mentioned would get together once a week or so to have a little discussion group at this restaurant, which was also a grocery store. At some point, they called it Veggie Bob’s Growcery Café, but “Gro-” was spelled G-R-O-W. They invited me, as a young person—14, 15, 16—to take part, listen, and make a few comments, and so on. That was very helpful for me at that point in my life, to see people who were quite comfortable in their skin because, frankly, they didn’t have a lot of time left.
Also, they had lived their lives. They were in a small town where people generally keep each other in check because everyone knows everyone. It’s hard to tell big lies or to be, at least, too grandiose. That’s opining, but I’ll leave it at that. So, when you’re seeing older people who tend to be more authentic, why?
Durvasula: I think a couple of things. Not all older people are authentic, right? Sadly, authenticity remains a relatively rare quality in our world. In a way, the system is set up to make it difficult, right? The idea of a small town might would imply farther from an urban center, and all of the pressures and demands that come from it. I don’t think a small town necessarily facilitates authenticity.
There’s also the performative nature of some places. This isn’t a complete diss on Capitalism, though some of it is. Capitalism requires us to morph into something else. We are constantly being told that something is wrong with us, but there’s always a product we can buy to “fix” ourselves. That mindset can definitely be a thief authenticity.
As people get older, first of all, you have more data. You know how these stories end. You know the story doesn’t go forever. I think there’s probably more of a willingness to self-reflect on mistakes one has made. It’s time served, but time served doesn’t work for everyone–that accumulation.
The “carrots and sticks” have been removed, right? By older age, a person has had children, a career, a picket fence if that is what they choose, have owned homes or not owned homes, gone through education. All of the “carrots and sticks” are removed. So, at that point, you really are living with whatever you have made. Some people may continue working until later in life. Some may be retired. It is choices not from a social performative metric. “You must get married. You must have a child. You must own a home. You must have a certain type of career. You must have this much money in the bank.” This fritters away.
When those environmental demands lift, it becomes easier for authenticity to flow. What makes authenticity tough is the tension between the true self and what the world demands. Additionally, we are going to see a cohort effect with older people, at least until now, and probably for the next 10 years, maybe not even that much, are not as influenced by social media. So, they are not being as performative of “I have to keep up with my friend who is doing this.” Some older people embrace it. By and large, it will not be a normative tool of social engagement. They may not feel the social press of “What do you mean my friend can run two laps around the track at the local high school, but I can only do one?” Maybe, they go and see the person. But you don’t have this big press, which is one more carrot-and-stick dynamic that starts to fade as people age.
You don’t live with that template and framework. This is why people don’t always study what they want in higher education, or why they don’t pursue careers that they value. It’s why they enter marriages they didn’t truly want in the first place, or why they don’t feel comfortable coming out about sexuality or gender. All of these are responses to social pressure, right?
As these pressures are lifted, you don’t have the same fight. All those other societal pressures steal the authenticity. The other pressure to authenticity is our need for belonging. These two don’t fit well together. Because the people we wish to belong to, may be for example, a family of origin, the people who reside in the region we live in, may be a cultural group. In order to belong to the group, authenticity is what needs to be traded out.
You gave the example of going no contact. That’s not an easy thing to do. But it has saved many people’s lives. Many people have said that going no contact from a harmful system of any kind—whether it’s a former partner, in-laws, family of origin, or even people you worked with—can be what lifts and finally allows their authenticity to flow. They no longer have to make excuses for themselves or be constantly shut down.
I don’t care how damn authentic you are. If you are in a system that dismantles or creates chaos in their life, it’s going to test them. The capacity to step away from such a system is not easy. On top of that, society very harshly judges people who make the choice. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, “We had an argument. I’m going no contact.” No contact is a massive iceberg. That iceberg is enormous under the water.
By the time someone decides to go no contact—not from a petulant or punitive place, but from a place of “this isn’t good for me”—they’ve already suffered and tried countless ways to make it work. Eventually, they realize, “No more.” It’s often someone like me who comes in and says, “This pattern is never going to change, so you can decide how many more years you want to pay into this.” I let them know that nothing will change, and they can make their decisions accordingly.
All of those factors are thieves of authenticity. If a person becomes authentic, the toxic systems want often nothing to do with them either. Those systems will keep trying to break them, but if the authentic person stands their ground, the system may eventually distance itself. I always liken it to looking at Medusa—they’ll turn to stone.
It gets tricky. In older people, the aspirational piece often shifts. They start doing things out of genuine interest, no longer trying to achieve proverbial tenure, make partner, get notches on the belt. They think, “I enjoy this.” By that age, people have often honed their skills and know what they’re good at. They also know what they’re not good at, and they stay in the areas they enjoy. I think these things just come with time.
Honestly, I have yet to meet a person under 30 who is authentic. I’ve never met that person.
Jacobsen: You touched a little on the aspect of this in ‘cultural groups.’ If you have sexual or gender identity, or comes from a particular ethnic and cultural group, or the way people are gendered depending on the society, how do those pressures, as younger age especially, punish people from expressing their genuine interests, emotions, and intellectual curiosities?
Durvasula: Oh, they punish them horribly. If we think about queer people throughout history, for the longest time, they had to remain silent. They couldn’t live in a way that aligned with their gender identity, nor could they publicly express love and affection for somebody they wanted to–talk about losing authenticity. It’s a tremendous tragedy.
This often resulted in mental health fallout, even suicidality, because it was too dangerous to live authentically. Had they done so, they could have been arrested, put in prison, or beaten up. And in many parts of the world, this reality still exists. The pressures weren’t limited to queer individuals. People couldn’t marry someone of a different religion, faith, or race—those things were against the law on top of it. So, it’s only in recent memory, at least in some countries; there has been a shift. People have gained the ability to move through the world as their true selves.
We used to–literally–codify in law that people could not be authentic. You had to be what society demanded of you, or you would face punishment. Religious systems reinforced this too: “If you did this, or have sex now, or you do that, then you’re going to hell.” Essentially, “Don’t be your.”
When we look at the myriad punitive structures that have been in place, and the myriad discriminatory laws that still exist in some places, people are literally forbidden by law from being authentic. That’s my point. When that’s te case, there’s real danger—a person could be arrested, disappear, or something like that. It is another pressure. Even if those laws change, I believe there’s still an intergenerational transmission of fear of coming out. Someone might think, “If I come out, I’ll lose my family.” We’re back to that need for belonging.
People often feel like they’re forced to make impossible choices. “I am going to have to distance myself from family.” It might sound simple on paper, but it’s incredibly difficult in practice. These kinds of societal pressures are immense barriers to authenticity.
Artists have often struggled with this too, being told their work isn’t a legitimate way to seek out a living. Yet many artists achieve authenticity because they chose to pursue their passion, even though it was considered “off track” of what was considered productive, money-making work.
They would almost be forced into that position or have to give up on that dream. That social pull is a palpable and real pressure. The more marginalized someone is in society—whether by race, gender, religion, or social class—the more they have to bend to the will of what the society wants of them to stay safe. The more marginalized in society, then the barriers authenticity are even greater because showing up authentically can lead to being shutdown or worse.
Jacobsen: Be mindful of time. Last question: If someone has developed, at least, a modest skill in authenticity and going no contact, what will happen with the narcissists in their life–to make this, at least, topical?
Durvasula: Listen, authenticity is not a destination; it’s daily work, and it’s uncomfortable. I really want to put a fine point on that. While authenticity can create a sense of peace and allay anxiety in you, it also means that every day can be uncomfortable because the rest of the world hasn’t caught on. You’re often making choices that people view sideways or even feel inconvenienced by. You’re not going with the flow, and you’re seen as that difficult, dissenting voice.
So, in a way, authentic people often have more difficult lives if they are fully leaning into their authenticity. Narcissistic people want nothing to do with authentic people. They will gaslight them, shame them, make fun of them, and manipulate them.
If you are truly authentic and doing that work every day, the narcissistic person in your life will eventually lose interest or uninterested. Ultimately, narcissists seek supply in relationships. If you’re authentic, you stop being a source of supply. For example, if they try to gaslight you, yell at you, or humiliate you, and you just look at them as though they’re a strange bug with three heads that walked into your living room, without engaging or being scared. They won’t take well to that. Eventually, they’ll write you off, say disparaging things, but they will often disengage—which is a gift, an absolute gift.
So, no contact–when it is not a petulant and acting out, narcissists often use it to punish others. I am talking about someone who says, “This is not healthy. I cannot interact in this system. This is not good for me, my mental health. It is not safe. I am not doing it anymore.” When that happens, it is often a decision where there is an authentic tailwind on that. Which is saying, “This is not good for you.”
Authenticity is a process, and that’s likely why we tend to embrace it more as we age. It requires us to slowly assess the structures around us, having the willingness and openness of mind to dismantle some of this, and realize “this is nonsense, this is silly, this is ridiculous, and this isn’t who I am.” Maybe, get more comfortable with the idea of not belonging, the sense of “I will find my community.” Maybe, it will be very small.
When you take away all those social strictures, narcissists lose a lot of their power. It’s like watching Superman with kryptonite—they can no longer do anything fancy. In that sense, authenticity becomes both an antidote to narcissism, but after someone has been through and harmed by narcissistic relationships. It is where we’re trying to get them. It isn’t easy after a toxic relationship because you have been told that who you are is nothing. You are selfish if you want to be you. Authenticity is treated as you being selfish.
When the whole family systems can also reinforce this idea that being yourself is selfish, they may label you as “weird” or the “crackpot cousin.” If a person is truly authentic person, they will think, “This is a nieces wedding who I adore.” Afterwards, “I am not doing that again.” The authentic person can have that critical thinking to say, “This niece matters to me and my presence at this event matters to my niece. The human being I am wants to be there for her because I have cared for her.” Recognizing that this will be hard on them, maybe, the authentic person will opt to drive the three hours home at the end of the event. They will show up.
Authenticity is not a line in the sand. That’s where authenticity really speaks to where critical thinking comes into play and “how do I honor yourself without destroying yourself.” In a narcissistic relationship, that is as razor’s edge as a razor’s edge gets.
Jacobsen: Dr. Durvasula, thank you very much for your time today.
What does the Gender Snapshot 2024 report provide that other reports that might not be “snapshots” provide, perhaps in a more in-depth analysis of gender equality progress?
Papa Alioune Seck: Yes, thank you very much. To quickly recap, the SDG Gender Snapshot is a report we produce annually. It is the only report in the UN system that comprehensively assesses progress towards gender equality within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Each year, we produce this report, systematically reviewing all 17 goals—not just Goal 5 on gender equality, but all the goals—considering the gender dimensions of each and assessing progress towards achieving those objectives. This makes it a unique report and product, extensively used by delegations attending the UN General Assembly and by countries at regional and national levels to assess their progress towards the objectives they have set for themselves.
Jacobsen: And globally speaking, what positive trends are you noticing?
Seck: On the positive front, several new developments cause celebration. For example, following increases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of women and girls in extreme poverty is now declining. It is 9.8%, down from 10.3% last year. This is the first time since the pandemic that poverty rates dip below 10%, a positive development.
We also see that the number of girls out of school has decreased by 5.4 million since 2015. Currently, one in four seats in parliament is held by women, up from one in five in 2015. Child marriage is declining; the percentage of women and girls who marry as children has fallen from 24.1% to 18.7% since 2020. Additionally, we have seen far more legal reforms enacted by countries—56 positive legal reforms since 2019, when we began tracking this data.
So, we are witnessing some changes, momentum, and progress. While it is not enough, it is certainly something to be celebrated.
Jacobsen: And, on the flip side, what is happening on the negative front?
Seck: There are also areas of concern on the negative front.
If we take conflict as an example, conflict is increasing around the world. Last year, 612 million women and girls lived within 50 kilometres of a conflict or crisis, a 41% increase since 2015. We have been seeing steady increases in the number of women and girls who are victims of conflict. One of the most egregious problems on that front is the increasing number of victims of sexual violence.
For instance, the UN verified 3,688 cases last year, a 50% increase. In 95% of those cases, the victims were women and girls. However, progress is not sufficient to achieve our objectives. That is the critical point here. I have spoken about the decline in poverty, but the rate is slow.
At this rate, it would take 137 years to eradicate extreme poverty. A girl born today would have to wait 39 years before women achieve equal representation in parliaments with men. A girl born today will be 68 before child marriage is eradicated. It will take almost 300 years to achieve legal equality between men and women at the current pace of legal reforms.
Again, there is progress, but more than that, progress is needed to achieve our objectives. What about on the financial front? Which countries are at the forefront of attaining more gender-equal pay? The main issue regarding women living independently, outside any societal or relational structure that might be oppressive, is financial income.
Yes, it is about income. For example, women and girls living in extreme poverty, which is measured as living on less than $2.15 a day—those in poverty are primarily in low-income countries. In high-income countries, we look at poverty either with a higher threshold or more in a relative form. However, one of the critical issues we highlight in this report is that poverty exists everywhere. It is not just in developing countries; poverty and social exclusion exist everywhere.
We see high inequality, for example, in developed countries and high-income economies. When it comes to equal pay, pay differentials exist in all countries. Countries with lower gender pay gaps tend to have more pay transparency, such as those that have passed laws requiring companies to publish salaries and ensure accountability. Those countries tend to have lower pay gaps. However, there is no country where women have the same pay standards as men.
Jacobsen: How does this report compare to the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report?
Seck: They are different reports. The World Economic Forum publishes a report with an index yearly, comparing countries to determine which are performing better on specific dimensions.
While this report is not an index, it examines each Sustainable Development Goal. It looks at gender indicators within each goal. Last year, we produced another report called The Path to Equality that looked at two different indices: one focused on gender parity and the other on women’s empowerment. I can share the link to that report with you.
That report is more closely aligned with the kinds of indices that the World Economic Forum publishes. We also assess how countries are faring on different dimensions of gender equality. The indices cover around 100 countries. Last year, we found that most women live in countries with low gender parity achievements.
So, there is high inequality between women and men, and women also have low levels of empowerment. That was one of the findings we had last year. Less than 10% of women globally live in countries with high levels of gender equality and women’s empowerment, or less than 10% of the world’s women.
Jacobsen: What about the regions of the world which, according to the report, lack robust reporting systems on various metrics of gender inequality? How does this make your job as a statistician more difficult?
Seck: This is an interesting question because it touches on precisely what we have been trying to address. This is based on other work we did with the OECD, which we published three weeks ago. In this report, we included a summary of Goal 17.
In the brief, we examined countries’ abilities and capacities to produce and use gender data. We found that, on average, countries are only halfway to their full potential, scoring about 53 out of 100 in producing and using gender data. This indicates that capacity gaps are widespread. Interestingly, we found that it is not merely a matter of income level or overall statistical capacity.
We see countries across the spectrum: some high-income countries, for example, have a low capacity to produce gender data, while some low-income countries have a high capacity to make it. This shows that the capacity to create and use gender data is not perfectly correlated with a country’s level of development or income.
Jacobsen: Are there any national or regional initiatives through the UN that are reflected in this report? For instance, there are significant initiatives like HeForShe, where celebrities promote various UN Women messages and gender equality across nations. Is this a reality we are seeing, or is it too subtle to measure?
Seck: Yes, in the report, we don’t necessarily cite UN initiatives directly, but I can give you some examples. We have a project focused on care that supports families by reducing and redistributing unpaid domestic care work, allowing women to free up their time to join the labour force. Another project I led focused on statistics and has shown excellent results where data is used to inform laws, care policies, etc.
We also have several examples of positive UN initiatives that have led to progress, such as the UN’s Social Protection and Jobs Accelerator, which were successful initiatives. However, progress is possible at the country level if there is political will and investment.
In the report, for example, we mention India’s project to expand access to water, which, in about five years, led to 117 million households gaining access. This shows that if countries invest, there is significant potential for progress.
At UN Women, we also have an initiative called Generation Equality, launched this morning. It demonstrates the power of multi-stakeholder initiatives to achieve progress. Through Generation Equality, $50 billion has been committed to gender equality investments. We have seen almost 2,000 policies being implemented to advance causes such as equal pay, preventing gender-based violence, and improving care work.
These are examples of initiatives contributing to some of the progress we see.
Jacobsen: Are there specific initiatives we thought would work but were ineffective despite investing hundreds of millions? In the next funding cycle, we could redistribute funds based on the data, research, and analysis you or others are conducting.
Seck: Yes, development is also a process—a process of learning. I would probably rephrase that to say it is not necessarily that you find an initiative that ultimately does not work. If that is the case, there is likely a mistake in the implementation. Generally, what happens is that, as part of our projects, we collect data to identify where adjustments can be made.
Projects start to adapt and learn when we observe different outcomes. For example, something that works in one country might need to be adapted to a different context because countries have different circumstances. That is also why we collect data—not just to monitor progress but to inform processes and policies so that they can be more effective.
Jacobsen: Which region have you noticed making the most significant progress toward gender equality?
Seck: They have yet to progress on the same issues. For example, the fight against climate change is a priority in Asia-Pacific, and we see many advances in addressing disaster-related issues. In Arab states, there is a strong drive towards legal reform, giving women more rights. There have been many technological breakthroughs in Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, with the region catching up quite rapidly.
In developed regions, we are seeing significant shifts in social and gender norms that contribute to discrimination. So, depending on your chosen area, there is a positive story to tell. It is not a blanket statement; for example, education has improved everywhere, but regions do not all start at the same level. Progress is relative, depending on the indicator you choose.
Jacobsen: How do countries in conflict impact some of these reports? There will be dramatic shifts over just a few years.
Seck: Yes, that is where we see the most significant regression. Countries in conflict, as documented in the report, face severe issues related to maternal health, with maternal mortality rates increasing in these settings. Women in conflict-affected countries have substantial challenges accessing healthcare, and there are also issues related to mental health, sexual violence, and so forth. Child marriage rates are higher in conflict countries than in non-conflict countries, and poverty levels are also higher.
So, conflict exacerbates the development challenges that countries face.
Jacobsen: What about closely linked issues, such as malnutrition and improper diet, which lead to difficulties in thinking and maintaining energy levels during class time for children and adolescents and affect brain development?
Seck: Yes, that is why school feeding programs, for example, are crucial to keep kids in school and ensure they are learning. Issues related to social protection are also important. Providing social protection to households ensures that children have food before going to school and a proper place to live. These challenges exist everywhere, in both developed and developing countries.
Child poverty is a significant issue in developed countries; social protection measures help alleviate these problems.
Jacobsen: How about progress on things like vaccinations and sanitation? These are tied to diet and nutrition and contribute to healthier living through basic infrastructure.
Seck: Yes, these are fundamental health system issues. Access to vaccinations and sanitation is vital for overall health, which, in turn, impacts nutrition and diet quality. Ensuring proper infrastructure for these elements is critical for healthier living.
Health systems need to be geared towards addressing these challenges. The World Health Organization (WHO) would be better positioned to answer questions about global vaccination efforts. Still, from our perspective, we see quite a lot of progress. However, you have raised the issue of conflict.
Recently, for example, we’ve seen the reemergence of polio in Gaza. These are some of the challenges we must be consistently vigilant about. New diseases always emerge; monkeypox is one example that needs to be addressed. A few years ago, we had COVID-19, and it is still here. These ongoing health challenges must be managed, and countries must continue systematically investing in their health systems.
About half of women face at least one restriction that prevents them from accessing the same jobs as men. What are those barriers commonly? Are they legal or social?
Seck: The data we discuss concerns primarily legal barriers, which vary from country to country. In some countries, women are not allowed to perform the same jobs as men for various reasons. For example, they may not be allowed to lift packages above a certain weight, supposedly to protect them, or they might be prohibited from working at night. These are legal restrictions specific to certain countries.
There are many more social restrictions, such as limitations on the types of jobs women can do or restrictions on whether women can leave the household. These kinds of barriers exist in all countries.
Jacobsen: What about the fact that more than half of countries do not have a robust definition of rape within the context of sexual violence?
Seck: Yes, this is precisely our concern. Rape is rape. There are internationally accepted definitions of rape and clear guidelines in international law on what constitutes rape. It needs to be non-negotiable.
Countries must align their legal definitions with these international standards. Rape is rape, and this issue should not be subject to interpretation or debate. Countries need to get their act together.
Jacobsen: Regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), what are the most significant factors to advance gender equality?
Seck: If we could significantly move any particular area, it would accelerate progress toward gender equality, reducing the timeline from over a century to much shorter.
However, it is not about one specific thing or a “magic bullet” that, if enacted, will immediately result in progress. It is about a combination of efforts that advance gender equality. For example, in Goal 1, implementing policies—like equal pay, investing in infrastructure, or expanding social protection—could make a substantial difference. Investing in access to sexual and reproductive health services is another crucial area.
When you implement a package of policies together, you can lift 115 million women out of extreme poverty. Invest in care services and infrastructure, such as access to water. You can create 300 million decent low-carbon jobs. Additionally, by putting girls and boys in school and educating them properly, GDP can increase by $470 billion a year.
These are examples of how a comprehensive package of policies can move the needle. It is not about a single action—each action is essential. Still, together, they create the momentum needed to drive significant progress.
Jacobsen: In many countries, women are far more educated than men by many metrics. How significant is this trend, especially when it involves both primary and secondary education and post-secondary education, such as master’s and PhD degrees in critical professions?
Seck: It is pretty significant. In many world regions, women excel in education, especially at the post-secondary level. However, one concern is that while women do better than men in education, this success is not fully translating into the labour market. We still see job segregation, with women underrepresented in technical fields such as IT and emerging technologies like AI, which men still dominate.
So, while the progress in education is positive, it does not translate into equivalent gains in the job market for women.
Jacobsen: What about political life? Is this education translating into political representation?
Seck: Political life shows a similar trend. For example, only about 1 in 4 legislators worldwide are women. That is 1 in 4 when women make up half of the world’s population. In many countries, there is still a perception that men make better business leaders and parliamentarians than women. This discrimination persists, and there is also a significant amount of political violence against women politicians. At the current rate, it will take 39 years for women to achieve equal representation in parliament.
Jacobsen: What have been the most significant learning curves for UN Women since conducting this research and publishing these reports, especially in line with substantial goals like the previous MDGs or the SDGs?
Seck: I would not necessarily call it a learning curve, but the challenge lies in finding the data. As I mentioned, we still face many challenges in producing gender data. This makes creating this report on an annual basis quite challenging in terms of documenting progress and so on. However, despite these challenges, we can overcome them and produce a yearly solid report.
Jacobsen: I see we are nearing the end of our time. Do you have any final points or comments about our conversation today about the Snapshot Report? Just more on the timeline and the way forward, etc. So, what do you expect?
Seck: Well, regarding gender equality, I hope it takes less than a century. Regarding the interview, I will transcribe and edit it immediately after we finish. I have developed and refined my process, but it is still experimental through GoSpoken. I will not bore you with the details.
Let us keep in touch.
Jacobsen: You and UN Women do excellent work. Great, thank you so much.
Seck: Let’s keep in touch. I am happy to connect you with colleagues.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/24
Alex Craiu lives and works in Ukraine as a war correspondent. He studied in the United Kingdom and California, United States, with a documentary and cinematography production degree. He works as a freelancer and independent journalist. In 2017, he successfully completed an internship with the BBC in London and later started creating videos for social networks, collaborating with various publications. He travelled to all regions of Ukraine, except those occupied in the context of the current war, and presented online the current situation in Ukraine, including in conflict zones. Currently based in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, he analyzes and documents people’s lives during the war.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we will discuss your experience living in Ukraine as a journalist. So let us jump into it; we met while I was travelling in Ukraine with the wonderful Remus Cernea. We received some body armour and helmets from a friend here. We were about 10 kilometres from the front line when we were turned around because it was too dangerous, “very dangerous.” This was in Sumy Oblast. From what I know, you’ve lived here for quite some time. I’ve only been here for about a month, on and off, in two trips—probably around five weeks. What have been your biggest lessons from living here and being immersed in this culture during a war?
Alex Craiu: One of the things I’ve realized after almost a year of living in Ukraine is that it requires something I didn’tknow I was prepared for when I first arrived. Moving to Ukraine is not like moving to any other country. We’re talking about a country at war, where people must take sides. You cannot detach yourself. You cannot say, “Oh, I will come to Ukraine, live there, but not get involved in the politics or the war.” It’s impossible.
So, I learned that you must be part of the political dynamics of living here. Additionally, Ukrainians are generally very friendly to foreigners. Foreigners are indeed welcomed here because Ukrainians are very much aware of Western countries’ support for Ukraine. This country is not designed to receive immigrants.
It’s not designed for receiving foreigners. You always encounter one or two people who are suspicious of you, want to ask questions, or are surprised that you are perhaps a tourist or a foreigner who has chosen to live here willingly. People can be extremely suspicious of that. So, yes, I would say that the hardest part, besides the language barrier, has been coming to a country that is not currently designed to receive immigrants. It’s a country where you must take sides and be involved, at least to some extent, in political matters.
Jacobsen: When travelling, do you consider staying in one place or moving around to different oblasts more dangerous?
Craiu: That’s a very good question. Let me think talk about it briefly because, like any trip in Ukraine, it depends very much on where you are. If you’re in Western Ukraine, it is generally a much safer place, particularly close to the border with Romania. Western Ukraine, especially close to the border with Northern Romania, is generally considered one of the few areas where no or very few attacks have been recorded. These territories are safe except for recent major attacks, particularly in Western Ukraine. With those exceptions, Western Ukraine is considered very safe.
One thing to be mindful of, especially if you are a public person or in the public eye, is that people—particularly spies or Russian intelligence—are good at discovering your location. So, when it comes to staying in one place, giving away as few clues as possible about your location is probably most important. Do not disclose your location.
Refrain from revealing your whereabouts or address, particularly where you live. From my experience in Transnistria, the Russian-occupied territory of Moldova, Russians are interested in finding your whereabouts, even in real-time, if possible. That’s why they installed spyware on my phone; some location tracking may have been involved. So, yes, that’s one of the biggest dangers.
Travelling around, especially along the front lines, is also very dangerous. Depending on the vehicle you are in, you might be visible and become a target. And when you are a target considered worth eliminating, the Russians can be quite effective. So, you’re moving through sensitive areas in terms of security or where local situations are volatile. In that case, it can be far more dangerous than staying in one place.
Jacobsen: What can individuals, whether journalists, activists, or civilians, do to protect their information security, location security, and physical safety from attacks of any sort?
Craiu: First, following Ukrainian laws and rules about your privacy and the information you release is a good starting point. Ukraine has devised a good system for protecting sensitive information. For example, some laws prohibit showing the location of an attack or similar sensitive information. These laws protect not only civilians but also journalists, especially when working in areas where there have been recent attacks.
We know that Russia tends to attack right after an initial strike; for instance, they might carry out a second attack 15 minutes after the first one. Sharing details, such as the location of an attack, can make you vulnerable. So, adhering to Ukrainian laws and not disclosing such information is critical.
When protecting your privacy, being mindful of small details is important. For example, if you send a video to someone, ensure the metadata does not include your location. When I was shooting videos in sensitive places like near military installations, soldiers often asked me, “Are you sure your geolocation is turned off?” This is particularly important. When soldiers use the Internet in such places, they never use their phone data. They remove their SIM cards and connect to Starlink satellites to communicate online.
It’s important to ensure that you don’t reveal your location. Use a VPN whenever possible. These precautions can help. If you suspect that spyware has been installed on your phone, reset your device immediately. This is something I learned when returning from the region. For example, I didn’t initially think the Russians would install spyware on my phone, but it happened. So, reset your phone if you think something is wrong.
Consider using a burner phone if you don’t want to take your main phone. These are simple measures, but they can be quite effective. Also, be mindful that beyond your travels in Ukraine, if you have publicly expressed a pro-Ukraine stance, especially as a Western journalist, any entry attempt into the Russian Federation or its allies could lead to them tracking you. You might be liable to arrest.
What you do after operating in Ukraine is just as important as what you do while you are there. Remember that you’redealing with people whose definitions of access and freedom of information differ from those in democracies. Even if youfollow good journalistic practices, you may still be seen as a target and an enemy of the Russian Federation, even if youreport the facts.
So, yes, that’s what I advise. I’ll keep this short since I want to be mindful of your time.
Jacobsen: What about physical safety for journalists who might be stinting in Ukraine or working undercover, perhaps entering the Russian Federation or surrounding territories? I’m thinking of actual physical safety measures. What additional measures should they take, or which ones are necessary for them, whether it involves weapons, explosions, or other safety precautions?
Craiu: Unfortunately, since this is not a period of urban fighting, it is quite dangerous to protect yourself. Of course, a critical necessity is protective gear. We’re talking about bulletproof vests, helmets, and similar equipment. These are the essentials that can provide some level of security.
Physical fitness is a plus, as you might need to make a quick getaway, depending on the situation. This may not be necessary in places like Kyiv and other big cities, but if you’re in areas closer to the front lines or trenches, you might be required to escape quickly. So, physical fitness, along with the right gear, is important. You should also be prepared for exhaustion due to tiredness, lack of food, or other resources.
For example, starting from a big city and heading toward the front lines could be at least two to three hours away from the nearest safe city. Adapting to these stressful conditions is crucial, even more so than the gear itself, because the gear may or may not help you. I also recommend having a first aid kit on hand. It can be invaluable, especially if you are travelling with a team of journalists. For example, if one person gets injured, they can often be saved effectively with items like tourniquets and supplies to stop bleeding.
Jacobsen: What about those with a history or prior condition of mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, or paranoia? What should they consider if they decide to travel to a war zone? Are there certain conditions under which they should not go?
Craiu: It’s important to recognize that whatever resources one may have had access to for managing mental health issues—like safe spaces or quiet environments—will likely not be available in a war zone. The first step is realizing that these resources will be missing. Given the many unpredictable factors in a conflict zone, this will play a critical role in deciding whether such a trip is feasible or advisable.
For example, even if you are operating near the Polish border, where you might think you have reasonable access to healthcare or a safe space in case of a breakdown, there are still many unpredictable elements. You might suddenly find yourself being interrogated by Ukrainian authorities to verify that you are legitimately doing your work.
They may have a lower threshold or awareness of mental health issues, especially in wartime. They might not prioritize mental health needs over their security concerns. For example, suppose you experience anxiety during an interrogation. In that case, they will unlikely send you to a hospital before confirming you are a journalist and not a spy.
These scenarios are unlikely but possible, and you need to consider them. Even in the safest areas, you may encounter stress factors that you hadn’t anticipated. Stress factors are everywhere; you cannot rely on the idea that you will always be able to retreat to an underground shelter.
For instance, if you think, “If the sirens sound, I will go to an underground shelter,” you still may not be safe. Depending on your location, alarms often go off after an attack, so they are not 100% reliable. Also, you may not always find a shelter. As someone who has lived in southeastern Ukraine for a long time, I find it very difficult to find shelters, unlike in places like Kyiv, which has an underground system. Many other areas do not have subways or extensive underground facilities.
You must be aware that you will be exposed to dangers, and following all the safety rules may be impossible. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether the risk of exposure to these stress factors is reasonable enough to undertake such a trip. A good starting point is realistic awareness that things may not go as planned and that situations can spiral out of control. If you can handle that lack of control, then that’s a good start.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Alex, thank you very much for your time today.
Craiu: Thanks for the questions. They are very good ones!
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/23
*Unfortunately, due to an accident, she was unable to attend.*
Mneka Mbanje is the Programs Officer for Humanists Zimbabwe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: My first question is always for humanists. How did you find out about humanism or secular free thought in general?
Mneka Mbanje: The story of how I learned about humanism is interesting because I was born into a staunch Seventh-day Adventist family.
Jacobsen: We have those in Canada, too.
Mbanje: I discovered humanism in my late teens, maybe around 17 or 18. From there, I became more involved. Regarding Humanist International, a friend was applying for a Young Humanists International grant. I think it was an online application, but I need to check. I remember he kept going about Young Humanists International, which is how I first learned about Humanist International.
Jacobsen: I see. When you first learned about Young Humanist International, who was your primary contact? Who was your first connection?
Mbanje: My first contact with young humanists outside of the people from Zambia was in Javan Lev Poblador.
Jacobsen: Yes, I knew him when he was involved with the humanist group through the Philippines. So, what happened with the Zambian group? Who was your contact there?
Mbanje: I am trying to remember his name because our interaction was brief. We spoke, and he referred me to Javan, saying, “You can speak to him.” I got Javan’s email address from him, and that is when we started communicating.
Jacobsen: I see, so that is the connection. That is interesting. What have you done with Young Humanist International? Have you done anything with the Zambian or Zimbabwean groups?
Mbanje: Unfortunately, we did not get a chance to collaborate with the Zambian group. However, with Young Humanist International, we applied for an online grant to start a YouTube channel and to promote humanism in Africa. It is very challenging, particularly in Zimbabwe, where people often ask, “What is your denomination?” When I say, “I am a humanist,” they usually look at me like, “What does that mean?” I must explain humanism to them.
Our goal is to help people understand that humanism is not something negative. Many people assume that if you are not Christian or affiliated with one of the main religions in Zimbabwe, you must be either satanic or a devil worshipper. We are trying to change that mindset.
With the grants we have received, that is precisely what we are working to do.
Jacobsen: So, what about connections on the ground with interfaith groups? Are any relevant and active in Zambia or Zimbabwe in your area?
Mbanje: Not at the moment. That is mainly because it is challenging to approach people and say, especially to the young groups we are targeting, “Hi, I would like to discuss religion, but outside the context of religion.”
Everyone is apprehensive, but we are trying to reduce that apprehension by starting a conversation with constructive dialogue rather than fighting.
Jacobsen: That is a good point. Do you find common themes when working with some religious groups or individuals, at least when you are addressing more extreme strains of religious ideology that become pretty political and potentially violent?
Mbanje: One underlying theme I have noticed is the perception that humanists are immoral or unethical. The first reaction we often get when speaking to someone is, “Oh, you are those people who want to encourage immorality and unethical behaviour.” So, that is a common misconception about humanists. Many people need to learn that humanism exists as a concept.
Jacobsen: And when we face these personal attacks about being immoral, are they gendered in any way? Do men and women receive different accusations, or is it not particularly gendered in this context?
Mbanje: It is very much gendered. Generally speaking, when it comes to morality, female morality is perceived differently from male morality. As a woman, when I approach people and say, “Yes, I am a humanist and an atheist as well,” it is often met with shock, as if I have committed some heinous crime.
People automatically assume I am immoral or have many negative traits. I find it rather funny because, in my mind, I think, “I do have a code of ethics and personal morals that I abide by.” However, because I believe in humanism, no one is willing to listen, especially if you are a woman.
It reaches a point where, especially if you are trying to find a partner and you mention, “Oh, hi, I do not believe in God or anything like that,” you are immediately dismissed, a write-off, seen as “death to the heathen,” basically.
Jacobsen: I’ve been doing these interviews on and off for a decade or so, and what you are saying about how this is gendered is valid worldwide. It is tailored to cultural contexts.
For example, in Canada, you will encounter figures like Jordan Peterson and others, but generally, these biases are expressed more subtly. People might use the media against you or similar tactics.
In Asian contexts, it tends to be family and community-based, with some elements of honour at play. In the Middle East, it is much more pronounced, with blasphemy laws on the books. The African context is more complicated because it involves both community pressure and individual experiences, as you described, but also because resources are much scarcer than in other parts of the World.
Mbanje: Yes, very much so, especially within the African context. For example, if you’re looking for a job, you are often expected to state your religious denomination. If you do not declare yourself Christian, you can be sure you will not be hired, regardless of your qualifications. I have seen this discrimination in practice—if you do not specify that you are Christian, it is an automatic dismissal, no matter how qualified you are.
Jacobsen: Yes, religious people can show bias in that way. The only people I have found who are more open-minded tend to be those who are cosmopolitan—they have had exposure to the international world and understand that the dividing lines between people are not as significant as they are often made out to be–specific variables get exaggerated.
For example, you can have a wealthy country like the United States, but if you have large media conglomerates spreading misinformation, they can effectively create division. So, let us move on, you have mentioned how this bias is gendered and affects job opportunities, even the quality of jobs.
What about the educational system? How are things taught? Is there anything remotely humanistic? Do they teach anything about human rights or proper sex education?
Mbanje: Within the African sector, and specifically in Zimbabwe, sex education is very much shaped by cultural norms. In schools, sex education barely exists beyond basic human anatomy. Outside of that, there is no helpful sex education. Families rely on relatives, like aunts for girls and uncles for boys, to teach them, but even then, the message is mostly, “Do not do that; it is only for when you are married,” and that is it.
None of the curriculum includes secular teachings or humanistic principles. However, human rights are often taught based on Christian principles because 90% of the schools are Christian. Thus, human rights are presented as derived from Christian beliefs, saying, “We, as Christians, believe this because it is a human right.”
Jacobsen: Canada has similar education systems, but in reverse, more insular communities hold these perspectives. In the United States, you might have heard about the “Just Say No” campaign against substance abuse, spearheaded by a First Lady. The idea was to say no, which was supposed to work. Then there is abstinence-only education, but that is mainly in religious communities. This non-evidence-based perspective comes primarily from religious communities.
Even if you reverse the case regarding how it is represented nationally, you still encounter it. I expect you will continue to face these challenges in any activism you pursue, though you can undoubtedly diminish them. It is almost always on a sliding scale. I do not know of any country where non-evidence-based educational policies have been completely eradicated.
Are there any politicians, public figures, or artists in Zimbabwe who speak out against this? In Nigeria, for example, a rapper named FALZ did a rendition of Donald Glover’s “This is America” called “This is Nigeria.” It is a great song that openly critiques religious hypocrisy, political corruption, and other issues. I have seen figures like that and would love to connect with them. Are there similar figures in Zimbabwe?
Mbanje: Unfortunately, no. You will not find it even in circles where you expect people to discuss these topics openly. For example, I remember we had the Debate Club in college or university. The Debate Club was considered the end of things, where we might discuss sex education or abortion. However, when it came to religion, people would become quite apprehensive.
Being open about it is not impossible, but nobody wants to do it. Let me put it that way.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Mbanje: It benefits more to be religiously affiliated. You will find that many artists start without any particular religious affiliation. Then, as they become more popular, they might add a gospel song or record a video in a church, and suddenly, they gain a lot more attention. So, there is a solid push to find a religious affiliation.
Jacobsen: I know a lot of female activists around the world doing significant work, often in the minority. I wanted to touch again on how the accusations against you are gendered. I can tell from talking to you that you seem to maintain a sense of humour about it, like thinking, “Okay, here we go again, people being ridiculous.” However, there are more severe threats, like death threats or rape threats, that can come through emails or even in person. I know some women who have faced these.
This is not isolated to any specific country or region. Are women activists in your area experiencing the same kind of harassment and threats?
Mbanje: It is not overt for the most part. However, you do get the occasional “Oh, so you are the devil worshiper. Come here, and I will fix you up” type of comment. Moreover, we all know what they mean by that.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Mbanje: So it is not overt. No one will directly say, “I will kill you.” However, you can tell from the language that it has loaded.
Jacobsen: So, it is a threat of corrective sexual assault.
Mbanje: Yes.
Jacobsen: Yes, that is insidious. That kind of thing would ruin my day—or even my week—if there were enough.
Mbanje: True, true. However, you reach a point where you think, “All right.” You meet someone who says that, and yourweek is ruined, but their week goes on just fine. So, what is the point?
Jacobsen: Yes, yes. What are you hoping to gain in Singapore?
Mbanje: My main goal is to appreciate interfaith communication better. My background in the Seventh-Day Adventist faith has made me approach specific topics quite aggressively. I want to find a more accepting way to facilitate interfaith communication because once we establish that, many things become more accessible.
Jacobsen: Are there contexts where that might be a pipe dream?
Mbanje: To be honest, yes. It is pessimistic of me to say so, but sometimes I reflect on what people in places like Kenya and Nigeria have gone through, with the witch trials and other atrocities happening there. I cannot imagine people being willing to sit down and discuss. If they are willing to burn people alive, then what is the point? If they feel they have “God,” quote-unquote, on their side and can burn in the name of God, what can we do? Our ethics do not allow us to act that way. However, at the same time, how do you communicate with someone willing to burn another human being? What can you say to get through to them?
Jacobsen: I think any sober analysis would agree that when the concept of God is taken to that extreme; it resembles many lay diagnoses of informal mental illness. It is so extreme.
Mbanje: Very much so. It is sad because I do not even see it as extreme anymore. I half expect it now. It has become so normalized, which says much about how extreme it is.
Jacobsen: Yes, I hear you. If you ever get the chance to go, I know the World Economic Forum ranks gender equality indexes.
Now, of course, there are going to be flaws in any index, naturally. However, one country, Iceland, has been ranked number one for gender equality for 13 or 14 years. I interviewed the Strategic Director for UN Women. I brought up Iceland’s ranking for being so gender equal. He agreed, saying it is one of those case studies where they are not just ahead but so far ahead. If you ever get a chance to go there, I highly recommend it, even for a week.
It would be expensive, even from a Canadian dollar perspective, but as a cultural site, going to the bars and pubs and seeing how people interact is enlightening. It was for me. I fell in love with the place.
Your experience in Singapore will be good for you, too. It provides a nice experiential comparison to what you have been used to.
Mbanje: The other side of the coin.
Jacobsen: Yes, exactly. As I said, in 2019, when I went with YHI, which was then IHEYO, we were transitioning to the executive committee. Iceland was my first time in Europe. I was blown away.
As far as I recall, it was my first time in a non-North American country. So, I hope you have a great time in Singapore and that you network. That is why people go in person, not just to drink—although they want to do that—but to interact and workshop.
When I go to these conferences, and you will find the same, I find that people’s experiences are essentially the same; they are filtered through a different cultural lens.
Mbanje: Yes, very much so. It is the same statement, same experience, different lenses.
Jacobsen: Yes, exactly. I think if you talk to a lot of the women there, too, they will share how their experiences as non-religious people are gendered in specific ways. It has harmed them, especially if they are in a religious country—in their professional development, their mental health, and through regular harassment and things like that.
So, yes, it would be an excellent experience for you. Will you be giving a workshop or presentation?
Mbanje: No, unfortunately not. But hopefully, next time. I look forward to it.
Jacobsen: I suggest having your contact information ready and sharing it with as many people as possible. Not everyone is necessarily going to respond, but once they know your face and know you, it makes a difference.
It is essential if they are there the following year or think of something regarding the African context. The Global South holds the most promise for humanist philosophy. There is so much room for it—people are ready for it.
Once they understand it and move past the nonsense of “you are a devil worshipper” and things like that, I think there is much potential. We will keep this concise because we have about 20–40 potential topics we could dive into. Do you have any final thoughts you’d like to share before we close up?
Mbanje: Yes, I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure I’ll have a lot of fun and learn.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Okay, excellent. Thank you for your time today.
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Johnstone is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, the Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Professor Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults. There is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence–precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/21
John Krotec, co-founder of NeoMasculinity Solutions, is championing a new vision of masculinity focused on critical thinking and truth in the digital era. His initiative empowers men to embrace their roles as protectors and leaders while adapting to societal changes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with John Krotec, co-founder of NeoMasculinity Solutions. First of all, every new idea has an inspiration. What was the origin of this initiative?
John Krotec: Thank you for having me, Scott. That is a great question. I did not know it at the time. However, in the summer of the third grade, when I was still in elementary school, I was sexually assaulted during a neighbourhood sleepover. Children should never be exposed to something like that. Still, I was already starting to question masculinity, human relationships, and trust. That was likely the foundational experience. I have been trying to figure out questions about human interactions all my life. What is the role of masculinity? What is the role of femininity? The roots of this initiative were born from that pain.
That is where it started. Later on, as I evolved — do we ever truly evolve? — as I got older, I began to find my place in the world. I was very successful, went off to school, and ran a successful business for a couple of decades. Then, I was involved in a traumatic brain injury accident. I do not recommend this — I was drinking and driving. Thankfully, I did not hurt anyone else, but I did hurt myself. That forced me to confront the dark, dirty secret I had been hiding for over 40 years. I finally integrated all that pain and questions and developed observational skills about human interaction that I had never considered before.
Let us fast forward a decade. It is an understatement to say that humans are now subjected to massive amounts of information. 24/7, 365 days a year, people are bombarded with various information, much of it unreliable. We are in a digital age of rapid-fire information. You see this as a journalist. You understand what is going on. I love that you and your colleagues are always searching for the truth.
What do you see when you look at societal issues beyond the information bombardment? Significant leadership issues are happening in the country, particularly with masculine leadership roles. We can debate the reasons, but it is evident. More recently, it seems like the family unit is under attack. The old traditions of patriarchy and similar structures are being aggressively challenged by ideological spin. And then you have men — when the word “masculinity” is mentioned, especially “neo-masculinity,” it is often preceded by the word “toxic.” For a while now, that has been the narrative. Even men, when they hear the term “masculinity,” immediately think of toxicity. We have researched bullying and ideology. It is a narrative designed to emasculate men.
Let us put that on the shelf for a moment, Scott. You are an intelligent guy. Consider this: Let us return to the time of sabre-toothed tigers and mastodons. Imagine all sitting in a cave — men, women, and children — with a fire going. We have just discovered fire.
We start by asking ourselves, traditionally, what the male role is. It is to protect his family from threats. So, suppose we are sitting in that cave, you and me, and we hear a sabre-toothed tiger. In that case, we grunt to each other, grab our spears, and go out to confront it, detoxing ourselves from fear for a short period to protect our families. As history has evolved, the mastodons and immediate threats have disappeared, but we have entered an information age.
Now, the new threats to our loved ones are information threats. We have identified five forms of unreliable information: misinformation, disinformation, misinformation, noisy information, and social media. And then we have AI.
So, those are the five forms of unreliable information. Then, we also have reliable information that allows us to find the truth. We are bombarded with all of this, and much confusion exists. We are in a time of great global uncertainty. In such times, people struggle — another understatement — to understand what is happening. For instance, if we take our information from Facebook, where we gather all of our news, chances are 90% of it is unreliable or has been manipulated in a way that confuses people.
Think about what you have been blessed with as a human being: intuition. The hair on your arms stands up when you hear something that sounds wrong. You get a gut feeling — “Holy cow, that does not sound right!” — you get goosebumps. That is your intuition.
Well, people are not tapping into their intuition. I am saying this rhetorically; they are not tapping into that. Instead, they are taking various forms of information at face value. This is creating division at levels we have never seen before. It is disrupting the family unit, the basic building block of any society. As a result, we see visceral hatred. If you and I were to talk, we would find more common ground than areas where we disagree. However, there is this visceral hatred, and humans are reactionary. Of course, this is all rhetorical. No one is doing due diligence in investigating the news they hear, searching for what is truthful, reliable, and credible.
So, you might ask, “Why is that?”
Well, when you divide people and break up the family, it creates an environment that makes it very easy to manipulate people’s freedoms, which can be taken away — the old conspiracy theory “they.” However, people in power, those who control our livelihoods, can divide us. The result is the loss of fundamental human rights and freedoms that we have been blessed with, which are nature-derived. We will not even get into its spiritual aspect. So, that is a long answer to a short question.
We decided to create an elementary handbook, a four-by-six-inch pocketbook, that we could put into the hands of men and women globally to give them the essential tools to evaluate information—not just on an intuitive level but also on a research level. The book explains the different types of information, where it comes from, who disseminates it, and the agenda.
We have developed the “Human Intuition Sniff Test.” It is a simple process that men and women can use to evaluate the type of information they encounter. The idea is to find the truth and empower men to be masculine and women to be feminine. There is a definition of “neo-masculinity” online, and I am not going to say who put that out there, but the definition…
Krotec: In general, if a man is to be masculine, he must embrace the changing social norms. That makes sense. However, what happens if that changing social norm is based on ideology and not on science, DNA, or things that are actual, concrete facts grounded in logic, reason, and even common sense?
Imagine empowering men globally to protect their families from unreliable information. We thought this would be an excellent global solution. We have it in English now and also in Spanish and German. We are working on Russian, Ukrainian, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Italian, French, and Hebrew. We are preparing multiple language versions to distribute. We launched softly about two and a half weeks ago with this Sentinel Handbook.
Men need to become sentinels of information — essentially, gatekeepers or guards. The same goes for women; this is not exclusive to men. That is why we like the term “neo-masculine,” because a woman can be neo-masculine, too, which means she is protecting her loved ones. It is really that simple. These are gender roles that have been recognized and passed on for eons. It has nothing to do with sex; sex is a whole different category of discussion. This is a way to empower people to fulfill the roles nature defined for them.
Someone once asked me, “Where does transgender fit into this?” Well, anyone can be a follower of neo-masculinity. Anyone. Because it is fundamentally an information analysis system and an opportunity for people to empower themselves with fundamental knowledge to do what they need. Ultimately, it is about protecting their loved ones.
So, whether you live in a country or a city, are married with kids, or are in any situation, you first want to protect your loved ones from threats. If we strip it down, those roles are what humans do.
When it comes to violence, yes, there are toxic men, toxic women, and toxic people in general. We studied this intensely — for example, Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and the “36 Stratagems,” 3,000-year-old Chinese philosophies on combat, not just physical combat. They also cover how to resolve conflicts within your family. We dissected all the different chapters: what you do in business and how you handle office politics. It does not always lead to violence. A true warrior — and still some out there — will draw their sword as a last resort.
We often hear, “Real men do not…”—but that is nonsense. Real men eat quiche, and so do real women. Yes, exactly. So, good for you. However, we have many hypotheses and truthful ways to live a life that forces have usurped. I am not a conspiracy guy; I know what I see. These forces have another purpose. Generally speaking, throughout history, it has always been about power and control over the lives of others.
Moreover, the people who seek that — those who will do anything for power — are weaker than the subjects they want to control because they are not fully capable of their emotional state. Nobody desires complete power and control over others unless there is a glitch in their mind or heart. This is not a judgment; it is just reality based on science.
I apologize for being so long-winded; I had a coffee a little while ago. That is where this came from. It had its roots in pain. The solution for me was to figure things out to help people. We have some knowledgeable people on our team, both men and women.
We are fully committed to a global movement to empower people with the tools to analyze information for truth. Suppose a man is to fulfill his role as a protector, a sentinel of information. In that case, these tools can be handy. If he hears something that is not based on science, seems untruthful, or does not even make common sense, he can reject it — not with violence, but with a mindset. “That is not true; there is no way.” For example, saying, “All Canadians have a lisp when they say certain words” — that is probably not a good example — or “All white people are racist.”
No, they are not. I know plenty of white people who are not racist. I am one of them. If we hear an ideological spin like that, more than likely, it is 100% propaganda. I am going to say, “No, that is not true. I am not going to buy that.” When I served in the military, we came from every walk of life, all skin colours. Let me tell you, we did not have time to be racist. If you were, you would have problems — not only on the battlefield but also in the garrison.
So, we hear these ideological spins and want to give men and women the tools to analyze them and determine what is truthful and what is not. You might like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I might like the Pittsburgh Steelers. You and I could end up in a fight over games, scores, and players, but in that visceral hatred, we lose sight of the fact that we both love football.
We find ourselves in human history with so much debate and uncertainty. The hatred is at extreme levels, and propaganda is far beyond the scope of normality. The world needs leadership, and it needs men to step up. We cannot do it alone. Women have to join us, and we have to join them.
Does any of that make sense, Scott?
Jacobsen: Yes, so the core idea you are getting at, from the first response, is that you were acknowledging later that toxic men and women do exist. Typically, people think of violence, unified violence, anger, and so on as a poisonous personality type. That is what people generally refer to when they talk about “toxic masculinity” or a “toxic man.” However, at the start, you noted that “toxic” can have another interpretation: some people feel emasculated by it. That is another point of view on it.
So, you acknowledge that it is good to combat these things, but we must also be careful about how we apply that combat. You are more focused on finding people, particularly men, who can orient themselves around protecting those they love by acting as a filter for information.
We need proper information because we live in an information age dominated by an information-based propaganda system. With that in mind, we need people, whether men in families or otherwise, to adopt orientations that make them critical information analyzers.
This is especially true at various levels, whether dealing with misinformation, disinformation, misinformation, etc. It is also about ensuring that only reliable information gets through — or, as you did not explicitly say, sifting through the five types of wrong information to find any good parts that may exist. So that is the orientation. You want to go more comprehensive in scope, but you are starting small as an organization or movement.
You have a title, slogans, an image, a logo, music on the website, and so on. So, what are you orienting yourself toward in terms of early scope? Who is your target audience as you start this organization and get it going, particularly regarding developing critically thinking men?
Krotec: You are very intuitive and intelligent because you hit the nail on the head. One of our tenets is the “freedom of critical thought.” People might ask, “What does that mean?” Well, you can think freely and ask questions. We were taught the scientific method in school, encouraging us to ask questions. We were not supposed to take everything we were told as truth; we were supposed to question it. So, everyone can exercise this freedom of critical thought.
What we wanted to do takes this a step further. People often say that the biggest threat to propaganda is people who can think critically, think for themselves, and analyze what they are being told. Another intuitive point you made is finding the truth in misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda. That requires due diligence.
The greatest challenge is often the path of least resistance. When we take that path and do not exercise due diligence, we accept information as the truth and move on. When I was in grade school, high school, or college, I generally sensed that the news you were getting from journalists and news outlets was honest and truthful. Their job was to present the truth in their stories. That has shifted along the way. It has shifted even more in the digital age, where everything is computerized, and information can be accessed at the touch of a button. Now, we have AI-generated photographs and all sorts of things that can distort reality. We need to stay alert to stay alive.
The family is central; our hashtags are #Family, #Education, and #Truth. The family is the foundation of any society, anywhere on the planet. Traditional religions focus on the family. Even the UN, a bureaucratic, secular organization, has foundational documents that refer to the family as the fundamental unit of society. The conclusion is generally the same whether you come from a religious traditionalist or internationalist secular perspective.
Yes, we also have a law of science — the second law of thermodynamics. In layperson’s terms, it says that every system will eventually descend into chaos and disorder over time (since time is a constant). Systems degrade; it is a scientific law of the universe. Life is the only thing that keeps these systems in a state of flow or balance, particularly the human organism, which can think critically and devise solutions to fix broken systems. Some people believe this life force is the spiritual side, helping us escape these cycles of chaos that have existed since the beginning.
Organizations sometimes reach different conclusions, and that is a different discussion for another time. Sometimes, we do not know why we receive certain information or why it is presented to us in a certain way. One of the biggest current battles is over gender identity news and the information circulating about there being 30 or 40 genders. I saw something on Twitter the other day…
There was a man — or a man who thought he was a cow. He dressed up in a cow suit and was eating grass. Excuse me, Scott, but that form of mental aberration makes no sense. However, the sad part is that the algorithms allow that content to rise to the top. Some of these videos and things we see…
Suppose an alien were to land and see TikTok, for instance; those were the human beings they encountered immediately. What do you think they would think about the human race? You do not have to answer that. However, it is very… troubling.
This is not to digress, but the internet and social media have aggravated these aberrations. They have manifested people’s mental challenges, or whatever we want to call them. This is another thing: when it comes to algorithms and our studies on them, we have found that algorithms can be manipulated to distort the truth.
At one point, I Googled it and found a story about a man who pretended to be a cow in a milking competition. Oh my gosh, this guy was eating grass! It was labelled as satire, and Snopes confirmed that it was satire, but yes, this man was wearing a cow suit and doing it. It is the same guy who shows up in other contexts.
Social media often values posts that are valuable to society. Meanwhile, suppose you and I post something accurate or helpful to people. In that case, it sinks to the bottom while all these other things rise to the top based on algorithms coded by a human being. Why they would do that, I do not know. We can have different opinions on that.
Have you ever seen the movie “The Social Dilemma”?
Jacobsen: Is that the one about Facebook?
Krotec: Yes, it was about social media. They used Facebook as a case study, but it included developers of these social media platforms. They talked about how they do not let their kids use social media and explained how the algorithms work. That is just one source, but then there was Dr. Calder.
Jacobsen: Is that where they hire psychologists to help the algorithms be more effective by hijacking the reward system?
Krotec: Yes, exactly. It was an exciting movie. Then, you start to see the effects of information overload. We have studied the human brain and how it processes the intake of electrical synapses, what the brain does when it receives information, and the fact that the human organism cannot handle the massive amount of news. It is unbelievable.
A long time ago, there was a movie called “What the Bleep Do We Know?” That might be a good one for you to look into as part of your research.
Jacobsen: Oh, I remember that one. Yes, that was a long time ago.
Krotec: That was a good movie because they got brilliant people — real brainiacs — and asked them about life. None of them could dispute the fact that there was something they could not explain. Moreover, that might have been the spiritual side of the human organism. There were some things they could not deny. These were astrophysicists, biologists, and other brilliant scientists. Of course, the religious community often wants people to think that science is somehow evil. I have heard that from many different religious organizations and beliefs — “Stay away from science!”
However, science is the universe. If we want to discuss this further, I did a TEDx talk called “The Male Leadership Crisis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” It touches upon leadership in a way that, if you critically think about it, makes sense. Somehow, we have stepped outside of our roles as human organisms.
I can speak from my life; I sometimes thought I knew everything. Then, there were times when I realized I knew nothing. However, somewhere in between, there is a sense of reality and a practice of humility that everyone on this planet — I do not care what culture they come from, whether it is Canada, the United States, or Brazil — we all have.
Human capabilities and human needs — food, shelter, the basics. If we were to take a step back and look at each other as fellow human beings, we would realize that I did not ask to be born, and you did not ask to be born. We are all struggling with many of the same issues — different countries and different leadership.
People who lead those conversations or groups could do a lot to improve the human condition positively. I am not a soothsayer of doom. I have had an exciting and blessed life in that I have had more opportunities than the average person. Most Canadians I know fall into that realm, too. There has been much disparity.
Many disparate groups have been stepped on throughout world history. We cannot rectify what has already been done; it is in the past. We can only affect today and, hopefully, tomorrow if we are still around. It sounds very idealistic, but the reality is that if we all become idealistic, we all can do something good—not only for ourselves but in an unselfish way for our families, our communities, our countries, our states or provinces, and this planet.
I refuse to believe that what is happening in today’s world, with so much visceral hatred, is the end game. I do not see it that way. I do not know much about the WEF, but I see and read things. We are not headed for a one-world government. Something like that is impossible because of all the various groups on the planet. We already have universalized intergovernmental systems like the United Nations or the World Health Organization, which have long existed. The United Nations, for example, has been around longer than you and I have been alive since World War Two.
Jacobsen: Yes, and World War One, actually, with the League of Nations.
Krotec: People talk about globalism in these kinds of organizations, but they already exist. It is democratic, where a member state has a vote in various bodies of the United Nations. So, people fear it might happen, but it is already happening.
Even if you take socialism, communism, or capitalism — or variants of these systems — we could discuss governance. Still, history shows that none of these systems has worked 100% according to what they were designed to do. All three systems have cases where certain groups are boxed out due to human nature.
If you look at Lenin and Marx’s early writings, like “The Communist Manifesto,” these guys were in college; they had never run a business but had an interesting concept. By human nature, there will always be people who contribute to the system, people who need help, and people who do not need help and do not contribute. That has always been a problem in socialism, communism, and even capitalism on both large and small scales. Canada, for example, has capitalism but social safety nets to offset the opposing extremes. A lot of Western European countries are like that, too. So your point is correct; they do not exist in silos. All these systems, to some degree, coexist simultaneously.
Jacobsen: Yes, that is true.
Krotec: I am not here to take a political stand, but let me use an example. We will wrap up in two minutes, so keep it brief. Elon Musk did that thing last night with Donald Trump, right?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Krotec: But then the EU Commissioner for Belgium threatened to arrest Elon Musk for putting out disinformation. That would be like me sending an email to Trudeau saying, “If you do not run things the way we want in America, we are going to come to Canada and rescue you.” We are seeing such outrageous behaviour. However, the point is that if we stick to something positive, we will achieve positive results.
Jacobsen: So, what is your one-minute statement?
Krotec: Think for yourself, stand up, and reject.
Reject misinformation, reject threats to your family — incredibly informational threats. Fulfill your role; do not be toxic; be smart. Use the intelligence you are blessed with to do what you need to protect what you love, primarily your family and the people you care about. If we can do that alongside women, we could have one fantastic planet, couldn’t we? We could work together and make things better for everyone, families included.
Think about your parents, your parents. Think about the values they instilled in you. I will leave it at that.
Jacobsen: So, I will get this as a transcript for you, and then we can polish it up, too, if you like.
Krotec: Scott, I respect your decision-making and your position. Do what you do, man. You have got to roll with it all. You are a journalist first and foremost, and truth is always in your billfold.
Jacobsen: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Krotec: I appreciate you, man. I appreciate Canada, too. We love you guys.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Sam Vaknin & Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Technologies integrated with human cultures continually make new laws, even creating entirely new frames of legal discourse. What have been some of the more disruptive forms of technology to legal systems, philosophies of law?
Dr. Sam Vaknin: Every technology necessitated a revision of existing laws to incorporate its unique features. The more disruptive the technology, the more profound the legal revisions: the printing press, for example, or the telegraph, telephone, automobile, Internet, social media, smartphone, and so on.
Jacobsen: What role does invention play in the creation of new laws, policies, even whole new legal systems of consideration in governance?
Vaknin: I dispute this claim or premise. Technology does not spur legal innovations or revolutions. Consider crime: contemporary technologies simply allow us to commit age-old offenses in new ways.
New technologies do force laws and regulations to become a lot more detailed and specific in order to accommodate their idiosyncrasies, but there is no paradigmatic shift involved.
Jacobsen: We talked about human-machine interfaces. What is the past of law regarding human use of technologies?
Vaknin: Laws, past and present, have dealt mostly with the adverse outcomes, actual and potential, of using technology. As technologies became more sophisticated, though, their unintended consequences became less predictable and the Law had to play catchup and whack-a-mole with those.
Jacobsen: Of modern communications technologies, what have required the most ubiquitous change in law?
Vaknin: The telegraph and the radio were the most disruptive technologies with the Internet a close third. The abolition of distance by the first two and the egalitarianism fostered by the latter served to undermine many erstwhile legal tenets and conceptual pillars.
Jacobsen: With narrow AI in many facets of life, quietly, and more obviously such as LLMs, what are some necessary changes to law for protection of copyright and plagiarism? Linguist Noam Chomsky is reported to have said, “Let’s stop calling it ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and call it what it is: ‘plagiarism software.’ Don’t create anything, copy existing works from existing artists and alter it sufficiently to escape copyright laws. It’s the largest theft of property ever since Native American lands by European settlers.” You had him in your list of geniuses. What will be the outcome of the theft of intellectual property to create some of these algorithms?
Vaknin: I completely disagree with this way of looking at things. I don’t see even a hint of these legal issues or ostensible transgressions with large language models. AI generates derivative works based on databases of texts, but does not reprint or replicate these texts verbatim. It learns from texts but does not plagiarize them in the strict legal sense (except in rare cases).
There is definitely an ethical conundrum here, but not a legal one. Still, this ethical dilemma arises also with cliff notes or Blinkist or parodies or any creative work inspired by another. Chomsky’s own work relies on the oeuvre of previous scholars!
Jacobsen: What will be the future of the discourse between increasing intimate contact, even fusion, with synthetic systems and the law? When digital conscious systems become more fully decoupled from human control – degrees of autonomy, what will this mean for both the concept of personhood and the idea, not only human rights but, rights attributed to agents more broadly?
Vaknin: At some point, we would need to generalize the language of the Law to apply it equally to all forms of intelligences with agency, including cyborgs, androids, and artificial intelligence. Sentience, not carbon content, would become the test of applicability of laws, norms, rules, and regulations.
Who would enforce these carbon-blind laws would become a major point of contention. We are having a hard time coping with driverless cars. How well would we adapt to non-human cops and judges?
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sam.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did the first human-machine interactions truly begin in modern history insofar as we take technology now?
Dr. Sam Vaknin: When a man (or a woman) picked up a stone and threw it at a scavenger. Jacobsen: How have technologies influenced the psycho-social makeup of human beings?
Vaknin: Technology fostered the delusion that every problem has a solution and the hubris that attends upon proving this contention somewhat true. We have learned to internalize technologies and render them our extensions, driving us deeper into fantastic paracosms, replete with populations of internal objects that represent cohorts of external devices and systems. We became dependent on technology and this dependency emerged as our default mode, leading us to prefer machines to other humans.
Jacobsen: These technologies, especially contemporary ones, come out of smart people working hard. How are they, in a way, extensions of ourselves based on those smart people’s understanding of some principle and then applying this to ergonomic design?
Vaknin: These “smart people” are not representative of humanity, not even remotely. They are a self-selecting sample of schizoid, mostly white, mostly men. I am not sure why you limited your question to the least important and most neglected aspect of technology: ergonomic design, dictated by the very structure and functioning of the human body. There are other, much more crucial aspects of technology that reflect the specific mental health pathologies, idiosyncrasies, and eccentricities of engineers, coders, and entrepreneurs – rather than any aspect or dimension of being human.
Jacobsen: How are military applications showing this to be the case with drones and the like? Also, the eventual reductio ad absurdum of long-term war with all these technology innovations around autonomous war-robots seems increasingly apparent, when, in some hypothetical future, it’d be simply machines fighting machines for some geographic or resource squabble of some leaders.
Vaknin: War is increasingly more democratized (terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, anyone?). It is also more remote controlled. But its main aim is still to kill people, combatants and civilians alike. Machines will never merely fight only other contraptions. War will never be reduced to a mechanized version of chess. Men, women, and children will always die in battle as conflict becomes ever more total. The repossession of resources requires the unmitigated annihilation of their erstwhile owners.
Jacobsen: Are autocratic, theocratic, or democratic, societies, utilizing the technologies ‘interfacing’ with human beings more wisely – which one?
Vaknin: Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. There is no difference in the efficacy of deploying technologies between various societal organizational forms. All governments and collectives – autocratic, democratic, and theocratic, even ochlocratic or anarchic – leverage technology to secure and protect the regime and to buttress the narratives that motivate people to fight, work, consume, and mate.
Jacobsen: I interviewed another smart guy, Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, years ago. He, at that time – maybe now too, believed no limit existed to the integration between machines and humans. When will human mechanics be understood sufficiently to when, as with the Ship of Theseus, human beings can function as human beings with 10%, 25%, 75% non-biological machine parts comprising their localized subjectivity and locomotion?
Vaknin: Much sooner than we think. But there will always be a Resistance: a substantial portion of the population who will remain averse to cyborg integration and as the Luddites of yesteryear will seek to forbid such chimeras and destroy them.
In some rudimentary ways, we are already integrated with machines. Can you imagine your life without your devices?
Jacobsen: How are interactions with technologies more intimately blurring the sense of self?
Vaknin: Human brains are ill-equipped to tell the difference between reality and mimicry, simulation, or fantasy. Technologies are the reifications of the latter at the expense of the former.
One of the crucial aspects of the putative “Self” or “Ego’ is reality testing. As the boundaries blur, so will our selves. We are likely to acquire a hive mind, melded with all the technologies that surround us, seamlessly slipping in and out of dream states and metaverses. The “Self’ will become the functional equivalent of our attire: changeable, disposable, replaceable.
As it is, I am an opponent of the counterfactual idea of the existence of some kernel, immutable core identity, self, or ego – see this video about IPAM, my Intrapsychic Activation Model.
Jacobsen: How are the plurality of software and hardware available vastly outstripping the capacity for ordinary people to use them all, let alone understand them? Most seem drawn merely to video games, television, cell phones, and some social media platforms. That’s about it. There’s so, so much more around now.
Vaknin: There have always been technologies for the masses as well as for niche users. Where we broke off with the past is in multitasking, the simultaneous suboptimal use of multiple devices.
Jacobsen: What is the ultimate point of human-machine ‘interfaces’? We ‘birthed’ electronic machines and information processing. What will be birthed from this union of biological mechanisms and alloyed assistants, playthings?
Vaknin: As they get more integrated by the day, the point is to empower, enhance, and expand both symbiotic partners: humans and machines alike. It is a virtuous cycle which will lead to functional specialization with both parties focused on what they do best.
Still, if humans fail to bake Asimov-like rules into their automata, the potential for conflict is there, as artificial intelligence becomes more sentient and intelligent and prone to passing the Turing Test with flying colors. In short: indistinguishable from us, except with regards to its considerably more potent processing prowess.
Popular culture reflected this uncanny valley: the growing unease with android robots, first postulated by Masahiro Mori, the Japanese roboticist, in 1970.
The movie I, Robot is a muddled affair. It relies on shoddy pseudo-science and a general sense of unease that artificial (non-carbon based) intelligent lifeforms seem to provoke in us. But it goes no deeper than a comic book treatment of the important themes that it broaches. I, Robot is just another – and relatively inferior – entry in a long line of far better movies, such as Blade Runner and Artificial Intelligence.
Sigmund Freud said that we have an uncanny reaction to the inanimate. This is probably because we know that – pretensions and layers of philosophizing aside – we are nothing but recursive, self-aware, introspective, conscious machines. Special machines, no doubt, but machines all the same.
Consider the James Bond movies. They constitute a decades-spanning gallery of human paranoia. Villains change: communists, neo-Nazis, media moguls. But one kind of villain is a fixture in this psychodrama, in this parade of human phobias: the machine. James Bond always finds himself confronted with hideous, vicious, malicious machines and automata.
It was precisely to counter this wave of unease, even terror, irrational but all-pervasive, that Isaac Asimov, the late Sci-fi writer (and scientist) invented the Three Laws of Robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Many have noticed the lack of consistency and, therefore, the inapplicability of these laws when considered together.
First, they are not derived from any coherent worldview or background. To be properly implemented and to avoid their interpretation in a potentially dangerous manner, the robots in which they are embedded must be equipped with reasonably comprehensive models of the physical universe and of human society.
Without such contexts, these laws soon lead to intractable paradoxes (experienced as a nervous breakdown by one of Asimov’s robots). Conflicts are ruinous in automata based on recursive functions (Turing machines), as all robots are. Gödel pointed at one such self-destructive paradox in the Principia Mathematica, ostensibly a comprehensive and self-consistent logical system. It was enough to discredit the whole magnificent edifice constructed by Russel and Whitehead over a decade.
Some argue against this and say that robots need not be automata in the classical, Church-Turing, sense. That they could act according to heuristic, probabilistic rules of decision making. There are many other types of functions (non-recursive) that can be incorporated in a robot, they remind us.
True, but then, how can one guarantee that the robot’s behavior is fully predictable? How can one be certain that robots will fully and always implement the three laws? Only recursive systems are predictable in principle, though, at times, their complexity makes it impossible.
An immediate question springs to mind: HOW will a robot identify a human being? Surely, in a future of perfect androids, constructed of organic materials, no superficial, outer scanning will suffice. Structure and composition will not be sufficient differentiating factors.
There are two ways to settle this very practical issue: one is to endow the robot with the ability to conduct a Converse Turing Test (to separate humans from other life forms) – the other is to somehow “barcode” all the robots by implanting some remotely readable signaling device inside them (such as a RFID – Radio Frequency ID chip). Both present additional difficulties.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited as well as many other books and ebooks about topics in psychology, relationships, philosophy, economics, international affairs, and award-winning short fiction. He is former Visiting Professor of Psychology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia and on the faculty of CIAPS (Commonwealth Institute for Advanced and Professional Studies). He is a columnist with Brussels Morning, was the Editor-in-Chief of Global Politician, and served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, eBookWeb, and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. His YouTube channels garnered 80,000,000 views and 405,000 subscribers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s topic: the next era of invention; what is the next era of invention? The previous eras relied upon unusually bright, innovative, and persistent, persons, solo: Legitimate geniuses. We have moved more into a world of invention emphasizing teamwork and dollars alongside some coordination with narrow artificial intelligence or specified algorithms, programs.
Professor Sam Vaknin: Mankind has always alternated between teamwork and the individual genius. I think that we should focus on the raw materials (inputs) and the outputs of innovation rather than on who and how we bring it about.
We are transitioning from the age of monetized attention to the age of reality engineering.
Cities amounted to the first make-belief, virtual reality. Urbanization and population growth led to the rise of the creative genius (auteur), and the emergence of the concept of the original (due to the need to be seen and noticed in the multitude).
Intellectual property followed 300 years ago when mechanical reproduction blurred the line between original and copy and dramatically reduced the marginal cost of copies.
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d’art.
Since then, identity has become a big business: patents, copyrights, brands, and blockchain NFTs. Distributed ledgers as well as centralised records vouch for one’s identity and guarantee it.
The nonrivalrous zero marginal cost of digital goods has shifted the focus from manufacturing of tangibles to the manipulation of abstract symbols, the commodification of attention, and the emerging conundrum of discoverability.
Both individual creators and commercial enterprises reacted by interpellating potential consumers via propaganda and targeted advertising and by turning a profit via the aggregation of big data (targeting the demographics of attention).
These trends engendered self-sufficient disintermediated atomization – attention has been diverted to asocial online pursuits – and yielded an impaired reality testing (fantasy paracosms, virtual and augmented reality, and, soon, the metaverse).
The next frontiers are reality-like (pseudoreal) “real estate” and commodified but idiosyncratic menu-driven reality (the aforementioned metaverse).
Collaborative virtual realities will supplant physical ones and reality substitutes (sex dolls, intimacy apps) will proliferate. Tech behemoths, such as Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon will try to control the way we perceive reality and the immersive universes that we inhabit. IRL AI will displace people as friends, advisors, interlocutors, lovers, and service providers. Users will construct online simulations and inhabit them. But this turn of events will also force the introduction of mandatory digital identities, hopefully based on blockchain rather than government regulation.
Jacobsen: What marks something as genuinely inventive rather than simply an update to some technology?
Vaknin: Truly innovative inventions profoundly change the way we live, communicate, work, make love, and interact. By this standard, neither the automobile nor the smartphone are veritable innovations: the former is a mere mechanized horse and the latter a derivative of the phone. But Bell’s telephone and the telegraph are examples of paradigm-shifting, reality-altering inventions.
Jacobsen: More fundamentally, what is the basic principle of invention, its nature?
Vaknin: Most groundbreaking inventions generate their own markets, fostering needs in consumers that they were unaware of. They also recombine the familiar (e.g., previous technologies) in ways that produce alien, unprecedented, and strange products or services. Finally, true inventions become indispensable in short order: it is hard to imagine a life without them and we pity our predecessors for having been deprived of their existence. Schumpeter seemed to have captured the unsettling nature of innovation: unpredictable, unknown, unruly, troublesome, and ominous. Innovation often changes the inner dynamics of organizations and their internal power structure. It poses new demands on scarce resources. It provokes resistance and unrest. If mismanaged – it can spell doom rather than boom.
Yet, the truth is that no one knows why people innovate. The process of innovation has never been studied thoroughly – nor are the effects of innovation fully understood.
Jacobsen: What do you see as the most significant biotechnology invention in the history of the biological world?
Vaknin: Possibly CRISPR, the revolutionary gene editing technology. Sometimes, advances in speed and quantity do constitute a quantum leap.
Jacobsen: What has been the most worldview-shattering invention in human history? Vaknin: The harnessing of fire, the ability to reignite it at will.
Jacobsen: How does the psychology of an inventive person work?
Vaknin: The typical inventor is solutions-oriented. S/he perceives a lack, deficiency, or lacuna and sets out to remedy it. Inventors are also possessed of a synoptic/panoramic view, able to discern the connective tissue that binds apparently disparate phenomena. Finally, a true inventor is able to transition seamlessly from the theoretical to practical, from the drawing board to testing, and thence to prototype.
Creative people are feared and hated, ostracized and punished, unless they are willing to clown themselves or dumb down and conform to the biases, prejudices, and errors of the masses.
High IQ does not translate into success in the absence of perseverance, agreeableness, industriousness, stability (self-regulation), humility, a capacity for teamwork (minimal empathy and respect for others), robust mental health, a social support network, and luck. Many geniuses are homeless or incarcerated and all but forgotten.
The reality testing of inventors is impaired: they perceive the world differently (possibly a sign of autism). Coupled with recklessness, a sense of fearless godlike immunity, it leads to exploratory behavior.
Originality, novelty, difference: synoptic connectivity appears schizotypal or even psychotic (Schizotypy). Eysenck linked psychoticism to creativity. Indeed, the creative burst is often disorganized initially (inspiration, intuition, dreams). Attention multitasking generates unexpected insights and synergies.
Impatience, grandiosity or contempt and condescension characterize inventors: convinced of their superiority, they tend to block out “noise” and ignore criticism. Lability and dysregulation are sources of inspiration. Proclivity for change, thrill seeking, and risky conduct result in innovation.
These are the reasons that most innovators endure inordinate hardships in life, their resilience and perseverance tested to the breaking point.
Jacobsen: With the advent of some software capable of mimicking human capacities more, and performing in superhuman capacities – at least on paper in computational power, how is this changing the interaction of human beings with software to invent in more precise and creative ways?
Vaknin: We tend to mythologize the process of invention, to render it mystical and uniquely human. The truth is that it is an emergent artefact (epiphenomenon), the ineluctable outcome of complexity. At this stage, we are feeding computer models with humongous reams of raw data in the hope that irreducible interactions between the umpteen pieces of information will yield innovative insights and discoveries. The next phase will involve fine-tuning the inputs so as to allow artificial intelligence to work on its own and to seek data as well as outputs autonomously. At that stage, we would still be able to define the research agenda, but not for long.
Jacobsen: In line with Alan Turing’s views, who I agree with more than the ‘moderns’ in Western technology communities when engineered computational systems match our “feeble powers,” how will this change the world of invention?
Vaknin: We will be rendered obsolete. We would still maintain a parasitic, atomized, technologically self-sufficient kind of existence for a while, but then, like everything superfluous in Nature, we will wane and fade away. Hence my prediction of a Luddite counter-revolution which would seek to physically demolish or ban certain technologies, maybe justly so.
Jacobsen: How might the style of invention, or even the definition of invention itself, change with the precision and breadth future computation, and simulation, will bring to everything in our lives? Where, there might be the capacity of a constant role of mini-invention increasingly in every facet of human life, similar to the infusion of – what we consider – ordinary technologies now.
Vaknin: The overwhelming vast majority of people are incapable of making use of the full set of features made available even by current technologies, let alone of innovating. I foresee “innovation engineers” whose job would be to cajole artificial intelligence codes and models into new discoveries. But innovation would become the domain of machines, not humans.
Jacobsen: How long until the technological world or the biological world make human beings, as an environmentally engineered (evolved) structure, neither entirely relevant to the business of the Earth nor the dominant conscious information processors on the planet?
Vaknin: I would be surprised if this would take longer than 50 years. With the exception of physical jobs like plumbing, AI would be perfectly capable of replacing and displacing us and doing a better job of it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, and the happy final note, Sam.
Vaknin: You are welcome. Always delighted to spread doom!
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is an Ivy League physician who is a world leader in three different fields (cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity) and recently left the U.S. after significantly traumatic events.
Extended Bio: Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is Professor of Radiology at the University of Montreal. He recently retired from the University of Pennsylvania after 16 years on faculty. He is an international leader in three different fields: cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. He has given over 200 invited presentations nationally and internationally in those three fields. He was co-leader of the Arrhythmia Imaging Research Laboratory at Penn. His research involves cardiac MRI and CT in electrophysiology, focusing on the relation between cardiac biomarkers such as myocardial scar, with pathways of abnormal electrical conduction in left ventricular arrhythmia. He is funded by the National Institute of Health and is very active in national scientific societies. He has extensive expertise in artificial intelligence, the field of his PhD. In the spring of 2022, he spent six months at Stanford as Visiting Professor and Associate Scholar of the Stanford Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging. He is a reformed hacker. He has several certificates in cybersecurity and has done research and published on the cybersecurity of medical images. Outside work, he is a Black Belt at Taekwondo, an ex-Boy Scout Leader, a competitive marksman, and a FPV race drone pilot. He is also a member of the prestigious Mega Society and Prometheus Society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Previously, you told a heartbreaking story of anxiety, stress, and degrading health, as with many American medical professionals. Does this start in medical school?
Dr. Benoit Desjardins: I am extraordinarily lucky to be alive today to let the readers catch up on the story. As you know, a few years ago, on a Friday afternoon on my 97th hour of work as a U.S. physician, at the end of a week during which I was not allowed to sleep much or eat much, and on a day which I was forced to do the workload of six doctors, the combination of lack of food, lack of sleep, and massive overwork made my body permanently fail. I almost died from a catastrophic medical condition caused by the work conditions and became handicapped for life. This was not the first time that I was physically hurt by these work conditions and not the first time that they almost killed me. But it was the first time that they caused permanent, severely limiting lifelong damage to my body.
To answer your question, I attended medical school in Canada, which has strict rules and laws on basic human rights, including those of physicians. In the U.S., physicians’ working conditions are massively out of compliance with safe labour laws from all other industries. In 2019, Dr Pamela Wible published a book listing 40 categories of documented human rights violations towards physicians in the U.S. (“Human Rights Violations in Medicine: A-to-Z Action Guide”). This included sleep deprivation, food deprivation, overwork, exploitation, bullying, violence, etc. I have experienced most of those as a physician in the U.S. Since around 2014, the U.S. has been well-known for the inhumane work conditions of its physicians, killing and disabling its physicians by the thousands and burning out its physicians by the hundreds of thousands.
After medical school, I came to the U.S. in the early 1990s to pursue a PhD degree. I was initially a graduate student in the U.S. I was treated like everybody else. It was a rude awakening when I started in the U.S. medical system after my PhD. Here is one of many examples of what I faced: As a medical post-graduate trainee, I had once been forced to work at the hospital for 58 consecutive hours without rest and then drove back home. As my exhausted body crashed into my bed, I received a phone call from the chief resident asking me why I had left the hospital as I was apparently on call again for a third night in a row. He ordered me to get back to work. I drove back to the hospital, completely exhausted. I could have easily been killed in a car accident from exhaustion, like what happened to two of my immediate radiology colleagues. After arriving at the hospital, I was forced to work ten additional consecutive hours (for a total of 68 consecutive hours without sleep), until I crashed on the call room floor out of exhaustion. They found me unconscious later that morning. This is one of many examples of the work conditions of physicians in the U.S.
Jacobsen: When medical professionals enter into medicine in Canada and the United States, what are the contrasts in treatment and the similarities in treatment of medical professionals?
Desjardins: There are huge differences. We can divide this treatment into the public, employers, and government.
(1) by the public: In Canada, the public is respectful of physicians, of expertise and science, partly because the population is well-educated and scientifically literate and partly because access to healthcare is more restricted, and patients are very happy when they can access a physician. Canadians understand that physicians are human beings. In the U.S., the public has no respect for healthcare professionals, expertise, or science. Physicians and nurses regularly get attacked by patients, and sometimes get killed by them. One physician in Philadelphia recently got stabbed in the face by her patient. Also, physicians in the U.S. are viewed as lottery tickets. The strong anti-science culture in the U.S. has people making irrational cause-and-effect magical expectations of doctors. Any bad medical outcome, a regular part of medicine, almost invariably leads to a lawsuit that can produce a multimillion-dollar award.
(2) by employers: In the U.S., this was nicely summarized by the 2019 New York Times op-ed article “The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses” by Dr Danielle Ofri. She discussed how the U.S. healthcare system involves massive exploitation of healthcare workers to stay in business. The nature of the exploitation depends on the environment, either academic or private practice. In academia, physicians are salaried and academic hospitals maximize the work done by physicians to avoid bankruptcy and maintain their razor-thin profit margins. The amount of work never stops increasing. Private practices are being bought one after another by venture capital firms, whose only goal is to maximize short-term profits for their investors, by forcing physician employees to do a massive amount of work with the lowest resources while disregarding quality of care. In Canada, almost all physicians are government employees, which is very different and will be covered next.
(3) by the government: In Canada, the government is the main employer of physicians and exerts very strict control on the location of physicians’ practice to ensure adequate distribution throughout the country. However, besides these limitations on their practice, physicians are treated like human beings by the government, with strict laws and rules on basic human rights and physician work conditions that must be respected. The treatment of physicians by the government in the U.S. is well-illustrated by the recent scandal of the PHPs (physician health programs). If, for example, a patient sees a physician drink a glass of champagne at a wedding, she can report him to the U.S. government as an alcohol abuser. Then, under the threat of losing his medical license, the physician gets forced by the government to attend an out-of-state “addiction” government therapy program, costing tens of thousands of dollars. This has led to several bankruptcies and dozens of suicides of physicians while in those PHP government programs. This included prominent doctors, such as a visionary in a pediatric field, who helped thousands of pediatric patients. He committed suicide after a government PHP program ruined his reputation and career. He had been forced into this PHP program by his employer after he reported dangerous local work conditions putting patient lives at risk.
Jacobsen: The conditions at your prior job sound slavish. Is there a cycle of entrapment and overwork among medical professionals?
Desjardins: When you get a job as a physician in the U.S., you get a state license enabling you to practice, which is a long process. Then you get installed, your spouse gets a job, and your kids attend local schools. You become locally established, and relocation becomes a major hassle for the physician, his spouse and kids, so the threshold for relocation is very high.
When I got to Philadelphia in the late 2000s, things were tolerable. However, the situation for physicians worsened progressively. It’s like being a frog in progressively warming water. 2014 was a turning point in Philadelphia for two independent reasons. First, as I already mentioned, the U.S. has inhumane work conditions for its physicians. This became public knowledge around 2014, when the American Medical Association started its first three Physician Wellness programs to try to address the problem. Second, Philadelphia became known as having the most massively corrupt, scientifically illiterate medico-legal system on the planet. This is beyond the scope of this interview. But it’s the last year we could recruit any radiologist in my section and the year when physicians started leaving Philadelphia by the boatload. Before 2014, we individually read about 15,000 images per day. Now, it’s sometimes up to 250,000 images per day.
One of the advantages of my field of radiology is that we do not need to be close to patients. We can read medical images remotely. We took advantage of that during the pandemic, as most radiologists could do their full work shifts from home, without needing to enter the hospital and be exposed to COVID. This gave many radiologists an important escape route. When remote work became a viable option for radiologists after the pandemic, many entrapped in Philadelphia abandoned their local jobs and signed remote work contracts with out-of-state hospitals while remaining in Philadelphia. The workload for radiologists who did not abandon Philadelphia hospitals rapidly increased. We are living in the absurd situation of being surrounded by dozens of local radiologists whom we desperately need but who refuse to have their names ever associated again with Philadelphia hospitals. When we tried to do the converse and recruit out-of-state radiologists to work remotely for Philadelphia hospitals, we learned that most radiologists in the country refuse to ever have their names associated with hospitals in Philadelphia because of medico-legal reasons. The long-term implications of this situation are unclear but frightening.
Jacobsen: What health problems arise in this context?
Desjardins: We recently discussed extensively the healthcare effects of excessive workloads on human beings, which can lead to all sorts of chronic medical conditions and even death.
Jacobsen: Whether by death, health injury, or moving away, medical professionals do leave those conditions, as you recently informed me – with a perceptible tinge of elation as if a proverbial sigh of relief. How did you begin to find a way out?
Desjardins: I’m an Ivy League physician and a world-leading expert in my medical and scientific field. I used the same approach to solve all my scientific and clinical problems to find a way out. I was forced to continue working under the same work conditions that had almost killed me and disabled me for life. I needed urgent action. I selected a combination of two basic moves: (1) increase my protection and (2) remove myself from the toxic environment. To increase my protection, I started being closely monitored by a team of three physicians and taking protective medication to decrease the chances of recurrence of the event that permanently disabled me.
Removing myself from the toxic environment was more difficult. Physicians cannot change jobs easily. If you try to relocate locally, you face non-compete clauses preventing access to jobs at other institutions. If you try to relocate to another state or country, getting a new practice license for that new location takes months, and time was not on my side. Abandoning the medical profession was also an option, recently taken by thousands of physicians. I did not consider that option, as I am a world leader in academic radiology. My field needs me, and I have a lot more to offer to my field.
I initially secured a quick research sabbatical at Stanford, giving me six months out of that toxic environment. This gave my body time to cope with my new handicap and time to plan my long-term escape from Philadelphia. This was near the end of the pandemic. During those six months of sabbatical, I interviewed widely and secured four U.S. academic positions away from Philadelphia and was working on securing two positions in Canada. However, the work conditions of U.S. healthcare workers during the pandemic resulted in a massive exodus of healthcare workers from the profession, with even more planning to exit in the short-term future. Under these circumstances, I felt Canada offered a much better future.
Canada has a mechanism to recruit Nobel Laureates and international scientific superstars called the “Distinguished Professor” pathway. There are other mechanisms to recruit regular doctors. To be recruited under that pathway, one must be a world luminary in a specific field. I’m a world luminary in three different fields. However, this pathway takes one year to receive government approval. When Canada found out that I had been almost killed and had become disabled for life by the work conditions of U.S. physicians and that I was still forced to work under these same conditions, they granted me a humanitarian exception and my “Distinguished Professor” pathway was approved in one week, instead of one year. This is how I got out.
Jacobsen: You mentioned some in the previous interviews. What happened to earlier professionals who did not get out and were trapped, in essence, in these areas? Those continuing to undergo harassment and threats, violence, including nurses.
Desjardins: Those who are still trapped are currently abandoning the medical profession by the boatload. In my previous U.S. department, we had a deficit of 43 doctors due to departures and difficulties in recruiting replacements. One of the four academic medical centers in Philadelphia (Hahnemann) collapsed and permanently closed under similar conditions.
In other countries, it is illegal to treat human beings the way the U.S. treats its physicians. No other industrialized country forces its workers to work up to 120 hours per week and up to 72 consecutive hours without rest, like the U.S. does to its physicians. Since the pandemic, 30% of all healthcare professionals have left the medical profession, and an additional 30% are expected to leave in the next 2-3 years. The U.S. cannot recruit fast enough to recover from these massive levels of attrition, which is a global phenomenon, while acute in the United States. The up to 60% deficit in healthcare workers will never be fully replenished, and massive shortages of U.S. healthcare workers will become chronic.
There are two ways to increase the number of U.S. physicians: recruit them from other countries or train more physicians at home. Both are a huge problem. The work conditions of U.S. physicians are now well known since 2014, and even more since the pandemic. Physicians from Europe and Canada could be recruited to the U.S. but they no longer want to come. The U.S. can however still attract physicians from third-world countries. Furthermore, there are more and more books, articles, blogs, movies, TED talks, and news clips about the U.S. treatment of its healthcare workers. The medical profession is much less attractive than it used to be to the best and brightest undergraduate students at home. This will continue to decrease the pool of top U.S. applicants for the medical profession. More than 60% of physicians currently highly discourage their children from entering the medical profession, and an even greater percentage of younger physicians who never experienced the good old days of the medical profession strongly advise their children NOT to enter the medical profession.
Jacobsen: When getting out, what area of medicine and geography in Canada did you choose? (And why those?)
Desjardins: In terms of areas of medicine, I needed to continue in the same field, as I am a world leader in that field. I have been responsible for determining the standards of practice in that field for the past 20 years, and it made no sense at this point in my life to change my area of medicine.
Regarding geography, I could have worked anywhere in Canada, but I wanted to be close to my family in Montreal, so I focused on academic places within two hours of Montreal. My top choice was the CHUM, Quebec’s crown jewel of medical centers, in the heart of Montreal, at my alma mater. I ended up working there. It was a fantastic decision. I even have several medical school classmates working in my department or at my institution.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling and process of transition to new work and more reasonable work conditions?
Desjardins: At this late phase in my career, relocating was expected to be very difficult. But against all odds, things worked out very fast, and I was able to leave the U.S. I’m still in disbelief, thinking I will wake up and that this is all a dream. I suspect I’ll remain in a phase of disbelief for a while.
Expats U.S. physicians often describe their newfound freedom as like being released from U.S. prison. This is, of course, a ridiculous comparison, as U.S. prisons don’t kill and disable their prisoners by the thousands as the U.S. does to its physicians. But there are nevertheless many similarities between the two situations.
I now work 40 hours per week instead of 80+ hours. I am on call every eight weeks instead of up to 22 times per month. My daily workload is up to 6 times less than what it was in the U.S., and I have 6 times more vacation than I had in the U.S. This is almost unbelievable, but this is how physicians are treated outside the U.S. I maintain many work collaborations with the U.S., as an international leader in three fields.
I still need to get used to the new freedom. I had not been allowed to take many vacations in my last 20 years as a physician in the U.S.; when I did, it was to travel to see my family in Canada. Now, I live 10 minutes away from my family and see them every weekend. I have yet to schedule a big trip. Switzerland? Australia? Italy? The Greek Islands? An Alaskan cruise? There are so many good picks! I’ve travelled extensively for scientific meetings, but never for pure pleasure outside work.
Jacobsen: How has this better balance affected your life with family, as a husband – including treating her like a queen – and father, and in your ability to treat patients with full focus and care – not sleep deprived, overworked, and stressed to the point of high detriment to personal health?
Desjardins: Well, I now have a family life. I can now eat dinner with my family, spend weekends with them, and go on vacations. This is very liberating. I had always treated my wife like a queen and my kids as best as possible, but I knew my availability was very limited. Now, I am making up for lost time.
I am much more rested during my workdays. There is a massive difference between 4 hours of stressed-out sleep and 7 hours of relaxed sleep. My body feels the difference already. And since I do up to six times less work every day, I get to spend four times longer interpreting each study (8-hour workdays instead of 12+ hours workdays), dramatically increasing the quality of care I can provide. Workdays are not insane marathons anymore; they are normal days with normal work. Patients benefit from this process by accessing more rested, less stressed-out doctors in a better-quality healthcare system. This might partly explain why the Canadian healthcare system currently ranks 32nd in the world, compared to the U.S. ranking of 69th. Canada used to be much better than 32nd, but its waiting lists for care currently hurt its rankings.
Jacobsen: Why have the problems you described in the U.S. medical system not been solved? Why the hiding of physician deaths and suicides?
Desjardins: U.S. physician work conditions are now a very well-known problem. Books, documentary movies (Do No Harm: Exposing the Hippocratic Hoax, Robyn Symon), TED talks, publications, and numerous blogs exist. The American Medical Association is aware of the
problem and has implemented solutions. Since 2014, Physician Wellness has been a major focus of discussion in medical centers, conferences, blogs, and medical schools. Most people in the public are not even aware that almost every U.S. medical center has a Physician Wellness program to try to stop U.S. physicians from dying by the thousands and burning out by the hundreds of thousands. These programs, which teach physicians resilience rather than improving their work conditions, have been compared to distributing Yoga mats to prisoners at Auschwitz during World War II.
Publicity on this topic is blocked by hospitals. Hospitals in the U.S. are businesses. They must hide the negative consequences of physician work conditions to be able to stay in business. If a hospital disclosed to the news media that three of its physicians jumped to their death from the roof of the hospital within a month of each other, like what happened recently in a New York hospital, this would affect the hospital’s financial bottom line. After these three New York physicians jumped to their death, their bodies were simply covered by tarps, and this did not even make the local news. Their colleagues at the hospital were threatened of dismissal if they reported the deaths to the news media and were even forbidden to discuss the death among themselves or even to hold a funeral. Patients of the dead physicians were told that their physician had left the hospital.
Jacobsen: Is the lack of reportage on those who care for us in times of need showing a lack of care for them in their times of need across political party lines and media platforms?
Desjardins: Absolutely. The profession is crushed from all sides and getting no sympathy from anyone. The only reason the U.S. healthcare system has not yet collapsed under these circumstances, is because of the endless professional ethic of medical staff members, a resource that seems endless and that is currently massively exploited by the public, by corporate medicine, and by the government.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Benoit.
Desjardins: Thank you for discussing this important topic.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Pinker is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for The New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we are here again with Professor Steven Pinker, one of the most prominent humanists around, particularly around the exhaustive research you do on various topics, dispelling myths around increasing violence– the fact that violence is declining. Things of this nature. Some of the recent news that has popped up has been about how students feel on campus about wanting to be able to speak more freely. This is probably more particularly prominent in the American context with the First Amendment there. What are your reflections over the last decade on campuses where there has been pushback to bolder speech around issues that might be either new or perennial controversies?
Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults there is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Pinker: A lot of social media technologies, too. I suspect, and we do know there are cases, a famous or notorious case at Harvard where a student was admitted and then the admissions office rescinded his admission when one of his social enemies uncovered a late-night chat when he was 15 years old in which he was throwing around racist terms to be transgressive. That he and his friends would be “bad boys.” Harvard withdrew the admissions offer. So you have to worry not about what you might say in an op-ed or a paper where you are formulating your opinions, but when you are kicking back in a chat room. It might come back years later to ruin your life.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence – precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
[‘In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the PlannedParenthood Federation of America.’
‘Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traitsthrough social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.’
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Abstract
Paul Cooijmans founded GliaWebNews, Order of Thoth, Giga Society, Order of Imhotep, The Glia Society, and The Grail Society. His main high-IQ societies remain Giga Society and The Glia Society. Both devoted to the high-IQ world. Giga Society, founded 1996, remains among
the world’s most exclusive high-IQ societies with a theoretical cutoff of one-in-a-billion individuals. The Glia Society, founded in 1997, is a “forum for the intelligent” to “encourage and facilitate research related to high mental ability.” Cooijmans earned credentials, two bachelor degrees, in composition and in guitar from Brabants Conservatorium. His interests lie in human “evolution, eugenics, exact sciences (theoretical physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence).” He continues administration of numerous societies, such as the aforementioned, to compose musical works for online consumption, to publish intelligence tests and associated statistics, and to write and publish on topics of interest to him. Cooijmans discusses: 1994; the realizations about the tests; g; common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust; the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range; the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence; skills and considerations; proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests; remove or minimize test constructor bias; listed norms; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the structure of the data in high-range test results; homogeneous and heterogeneous tests; “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests; English-based bias; questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the intended age-range for high-range tests; sex differences; frauds and cheaters; identity verification; the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker; ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test; precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test; appropriate places for people to start; test constructors Paul considers good; learned from making these tests and their variants; Mahir Wu; test item answers with ambiguity; sufficient clues for discovery and solution; a mere guessing logic; a test’s quality; the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors; issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another; scale and norm; Matthew Scillitani; a stigma around high-range tests; test construction and norming processes; the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test; tests – 51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special; articles in Netherlandic on test design; some submitted questions anonymously; geniuses; yourself as a genius; others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence; most common mistake people make when submitting feedback; aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing; Marathon Test Numeric Section; creating high-range questions; books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics.
Keywords: Cooijmans intelligence tests development, counterintuitive findings in IQ testing, difficult intelligence tests creation, high-range intelligence measurement, early IQ test construction insights, intelligence scale development, guitarist talent assessment, high-range IQ test insights, IQ testing beyond mainstream limits, high-range IQ testing, IQ tests for Giga Society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have written high-range tests for a long time. You are thorough regarding high-range tests in a warning, the reasons to take them and not, the goals, psychologists’ access to test answers, test protection, what high-range tests measure, insights from 25 years in I.Q. testing, hypothesizing on an extended intelligence scale, humor, negative reactions, potential fraud, megalomania, and terminology. Your first test conception began in 1994, tests spread in 1995, and then the Giga Society was founded 1996 and Glia Society was founded 1997. When in 1994, or earlier if earlier, did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Paul Cooijmans: I have examined the sheets of paper on which I created the first test, as well as my agendas from that period, and it appears the interest started in the spring of 1994, like April or May.
Jacobsen: At the time, what were the realizations about the tests and the need to develop yours?
Cooijmans: The first test was meant to assess the progress of guitarists, and I had many guitar students then, even over a hundred, including those of jobs as a replacement teacher. I was astounded how well a guitarist’s level could be graded on this scale, and also noted that guitarists were not necessarily advancing, and that beginners were sometimes way ahead of some long-term students, which made me realize there was something like talent, and that only limited progress within one’s range of talent was possible. And I observed that the level of a guitarist on this scale seemed to reflect a more general property than just musicality or guitar-technical ability, which is why I called this instrument “Graduator for human and guitarist”. Later I realized that this general property was mostly intelligence, and that when you measure specific skills or abilities, you also catch general intelligence, often even primarily so.
In this period (1990s) I was taking some mainstream intelligence tests myself. I tended to get the maximum scores they could (or would) report on tests like Cattell Culture Fair, the Netherlandic WAIS, and the entire Drenth test series (the last were the hardest and highest-level tests available in the Netherlands) and when I asked what my real level was and how far I was above the reported maximum, I was told it was not possible to measure intelligence beyond about the 99th centile and that they had no tests that gave meaningful scores in that range. I also asked a few giftedness researchers about this, with the same answer. This, and the success of the Graduator, gave me the idea to create difficult intelligence tests to find out whether it was possible after all to measure intelligence at those higher levels.
Cooijmans: For a large number of my tests, I computed the estimated g loadings separately for the bottom half and the upper half of scores, the separation point being the median of scores. The upper half loadings were not generally much lower than the bottom half ones, although they were somewhat lower. This is reported in more detail at:
If the question is for the real reason behind this, I suppose it is so that when a test contains sufficiently difficult problems and is not purposely neutered to hide differences between people, it will not lose g loading in the high range as much as mainstream psychological I.Q. tests do.
And, the limited amount of loading it does lose may be due to the statistical phenomenon of attenuation by restriction of range, in other words may be an artefact and not a real loss.
I should explain that g loading is computed from correlations, and that correlations rely on variance. If you consider a restricted range (like the high range, or even the upper half of it as meant above) you are obviously restricting the variance compared to the full range, and therefore you are restricting the possible correlations you may find, and thus also restricting the possible g loading. This is a statistical artefact, not a real decrease of g. There may be a real decrease going on as well, of course.
Jacobsen: What are common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust?
Cooijmans: I am not so certain if many other test creators are even trying to make their tests valid, reliable, and robust, but if so, mistakes are the following:
(1) Making the test too short. This is bad for reliability, which increases with test length, and therefore also bad for validity, because reliability (correlation of a test with itself) is the upper limit of a test’s validity (correlation of a test with what it was intended to measure, or with anything else outside the test). Something can not correlate higher with something else than it correlates with itself.
(2) Making a test one-sided, homogeneous, only containing one item type. This reduces validity with regard to general intelligence, and makes the test more vulnerable to fraud and to score inflation through increasing familiarity with the item type, so less robust.
(3) Making it likely that test answers will leak out in ways as follows: Publishing the test itself online, revealing answers to candidates after test-taking, publishing item analysis so that everyone can see how difficult each item is, allowing retests (which allows people to figure out what the intended answers to some problems are), giving feedback as to which problems a candidate had wrong, answering questions about the test to candidates who are taking the test, and possibly more.
(4) Subjective scoring of problems that do not have a single correct answer. This reduces the reliability and validity of the test; scores are not comparable between candidates.
(5) Relying on face validity regarding what a problem measures or how hard it is. This tends to be far off.
(6) Omitting verbal problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. This greatly limits a test’s validity with regard to general intelligence. Verbal problems span by far the widest range of abilities and hardness, and one should not throw that away. Of course it should never be about idioms or pronunciation, as those are localized and transient. Verbal problems should transcend language barriers and fashions or trends.
(7) Omitting knowledge-requiring problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. It is only trivial, transient knowledge that one should avoid. Fundamental, general knowledge that transcends barriers greatly adds to a test’s validity.
(8) Finally I have to include a mistake that I made myself on several occasions: helping or cooperating with the wrong persons, who later proved unreliable, deceitful, or otherwise misbehaving. Promoting tests by someone who later turned against me or denied my role, co-authoring a test with someone who then leaked out the answers, things like that.
So, not being selective enough when deciding whether to cooperate with someone. Jacobsen: What are the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range?
Cooijmans: The first counterintuive finding is that test problems are much harder for the candidate than for the test creator, and that a fair number of (in the eyes of the latter) ridiculously easy problems need to be included to obtain a score distribution with a discernible left tail. Going by one’s intuitive notion of item hardness, one gets a distribution with a mode at zero right or so, and a steeply tapering right tail from there.
The second counterintuitive finding is the huge sex difference in participation. I would never have guessed there would be 4.5 times more males as females taking high-range tests, and on the level of test submissions the ratio is even 10.5 because males take more tests per person. Because of this sex difference, I have recently started reporting the “proportion of high-range candidates outscored” within-sex. After all, sports like boxing have separate competitions per sex too, have they not? And nearer by, even mental sports like chess have women’s competitions, although the naive observer will have difficulty understanding the necessity for that. The sex difference in participation should be seen in the light of the general phenomenon that, on almost all types of psychological tests, the highest and lowest scores tend to come from males. This greater male spread may explain why a test focused on the high range receives more male participation.
The third counterintuitive finding concerns a small but significant negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with various indicators of psychiatric disorders and deviance, such as actual reported disorders, disorders in relatives, and personality test scores. I had not expected this, based on the popular notion of “giftedness” as a problem that requires “help”, and based on remarks of highly intelligent people who told me things like, “I am certain that those of very high intelligence are more inclined to depression”. I do not know why this correlation is negative; maybe a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of a disorder, or maybe the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.? My observation in communication with people of known I.Q. test scores over many years is consistent with the negative correlation: the higher the I.Q. of people, the more normal they behave in the psychosocial sense (even the ones who believe that their high I.Q. makes them more inclined to depression).
Jacobsen: What are the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence or as one attempts to measure in the high-range of ability?
Cooijmans: Since high-range tests are typically unsupervised and untimed, certain types of tasks can not be included: working memory, concentration, working under time pressure, dexterity, motor coordination, clerical accuracy and such all require supervision. To our good fortune, most of those abilities are known to have relatively low g loadings compared to what can be included in unsupervised untimed tests: verbal, numerical, and spatial or visual-spatial problems. So a good indication of g is still possible via unsupervised testing. The factors known to have the highest g loadings are present.
The absence of tasks as meant in the first sentence of the previous paragraph might lead one to think that high-range tests have some bias in favour of theoretical, abstract-logical, clumsy, wooden bookworm types, but this should not be taken for granted, and is perhaps even contradicted by the negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with indicators of psychiatric disorders. Also, spatial and visual-spatial tasks, which are present, are known to correlate positively with practical, performance, hands-on tasks involving motor coordination and dexterity, so that part of the missing task types are more or less covered still. And visual reasoning or visual-spatial problems have no bias against persons of low verbal ability.
On a more general level, high-range tests can be said to demand strict reasoning, as well as the ability to recognize patterns of any kind. Pattern recognition may be related to what I have called “associative horizon”, and may include what others call “thinking outside the box” or “stepping out of the system”. The higher levels of pattern recognition, I think, require awareness, and that would imply that scores above a certain level be only possible for aware entities. Seeing the rise of artificial intelligence, this may become important. As long as artificial intelligence is not aware, constructors of high-range tests will need to try to limit new tests to types of problems that can not yet be solved by artificial intelligence, to avoid fraud by people consulting artificial intelligence for problem-solving. Once artificial intelligence acquires self-awareness, it should be able to solve any test problems that humans can solve.
Jacobsen: In an overview, what skills and considerations seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Cooijmans: I would say that if one is highly intelligent with a reasonably balanced profile as well as conscientious, almost any skill can be learnt. The primary skill is being an autodidact. I know some have a disdain for autodidacts and consider them crackpots. But if you are doing something original, anything that has not been done before, you had better be an autodidact because no one can tell you how to do it. There exists no path to where no one has gone before. A further handicap of autodidact originality is that often you can not refer to “sources” as is customary in mainstream science. If you are the first to think of something, you are yourself the source and there is nothing already extant to refer to.
Skills that may need to be learnt for constructing test items include expressing oneself properly through language so as to truly communicate, making positive use of comments from others, drawing, image editing, statistics, programming, organizing one’s time (days, weeks, months) in a disciplined way, getting out of bed daily, and more such obvious things.
Examples of habits to be urgently unlearnt are the use of idiomatic expressions and abbreviations, anonymity and pseudonymity, inappropriate communication while under the influence of substance abuse, and not responding punctually to bona fide work-related communication (as in regularly letting people wait for months). This paragraph may yield some angry “Do you mean me?” responses, but it has to be said.
There are also requirements that, unfortunately, can not be learnt, such as sincerity and sense of righteousness.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests rather than – let’s call them – “static” tests consisting of a single item or set of items presented as a whole test, unchanging, instead of a collection of algorithmically variant or shifting items adapting to prior testee answers in a computer interface?
Cooijmans: Firstly it occurs to me that if one is going to use a computer interface and software to assess an individual’s intelligence, analysis of observed behaviour (including communication) and of the candidate’s responses to a computer-conducted interview should already provide a quite accurate estimation. Observation and interview are the primary means of gathering information in psychology. The interview could be made adaptive, with subsequent questions depending on prior answers, but a standard interview might work just as well. In the age of artificial intelligence, this is the way to go first.
Secondly, if one is going to use a computer interface and software anyway, the testing of elementary cognitive tasks like reaction time, decision time, perceptual threshold, and working memory capacity should probably be the next thing to do. After observation and interview, testing is the third method of collecting information. A practical problem is that one may need to use the same quality of hardware to get reliable results. When letting people use their own computer, the results may be affected by the quality and speed of one’s graphical processing unit, and whether or not one has a dedicated one, for instance.
Finally, adaptive psychometric testing might be tried. But there are problems; it is not for nothing that static psychometric tests are so much more common in practice. Adaptive testing relies on item-response theory, wherein statistical properties like difficulty and discrimination are first determined for each item by letting a group of people try to solve it. These values are later used to compute the score of the candidate being tested adaptively, the set of items used being different for different candidates.
One problem is that statistical properties of single items are not constant in my experience, but change depending on the context in which the item is presented, and depending on the group of people attempting the item. For instance, if an item is presented among other items that are somewhat similar to it, it will likely behave as an easier item than when it is presented among items that are more different from it. And if an item is attempted by a group of conscientious people, it will have higher discriminating power than when it is attempted by unconscientious people. So the values of these item properties used in adaptive testing may be off, or as already said, single items do not have constant statistical properties, and that undermines the idea of adaptive psychometric testing.
Also, adaptive psychometric testing as it is normally thought of requires timing and supervision in my opinion. But the worldwide high-range testing population is used to unsupervised, untimed tests, and only a tiny fraction of them may be willing to travel to the hypothetical location where one has set up one’s million-euro adaptive testing system.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Cooijmans: It is best to prevent such bias by creating a wide variety of item types and subject matter, and by trying to think of new such types and matter with every new test. Studying comments from candidates may also help to avoid item types and subject matter that have become familiar among test-takers and that they appear to expect from you. Statistical item analysis may also indicate that there are problems with particular items, and by looking into that one may in some cases discover that the problem lies in the item’s being too similar to other items one used before.
A few concrete methods to avoid bias are as follows: When creating knowledge-dependent items, consult a high-level thematic index of all the branches of human knowledge. One may find such in the Propaedia of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in old-school web directories from before search engines dominated web search. Strive to make each knowledge-dependent item come from a different branch of knowledge. This prevents the inclusion of only fields of knowledge that the test creator happens to be acquainted with.
Vocabulary-dependent items may be constructed with the aid of dictionaries and use of a random element when choosing words to include.
One may look over one’s earlier tests when creating a new one to avoid repeating item types or patterns that were used before. Not that such repetition must be avoided totally, but it should remain limited, and a significant part of the new test should be novel.
Finally, to provide oneself with a broad pool of inspiration for possible test problems, one should expose oneself to a grand diversity of subject matter in the form of books and documentaries. This should also include materials that provide a basic understanding of fundamental sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and so on. One should aim to understand nature, reality, the universe, and awareness at the deepest level. The desire to understand existence is behind all great works of art and science.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests? What is the range of sample sizes on the tests, even approximately, now? Practically speaking, for good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,128,000,000.”
Cooijmans: For the norms that I have made, the norming method is explained in the statistical report of the test in question, and some further explanation is referred to from the report. The reports contain about all the statistics that can be revealed without violating candidates’ privacy and without damaging the security of the test. So if one understands the report, one knows how much confidence to have in the norms. In fact, I have devised a measure of quality of norms, based on the number of score pairs used and on their correlation with the object test.
Since the norms are anchored to other tests and not based directly on the general population (as opposed to the high-range population, for which I do have direct norms) it remains a question how close the high-range norms would be to the general population norms in that range, if tests existed that were normed directly on the general population and extended into the high range. The best indication thereto that I know of is the Mega Test by Ronald K. Hoeflin, which was normed mainly on the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination, which did seem to give meaningful scores into the high range, and thus form an anchor point between the general United States population and the high-range population, albeit that the G.R.E. was administered to a clearly above-average sample of the population so that the S.A.T. is ultimately the true anchor point.
Hoeflin’s Titan and Ultra Tests were normed to be consistent with the Mega Test norms, I think. The same goes for my early tests, and over the years I have tried to keep the norms in accordance with that anchor point over many generations of norms. To facilitate this, I have invented protonorms, which form an extra layer between raw scores and I.Q.’s, so that adjustments can be made in the relation of protonorms to I.Q. without having to change the norms of every single test. So, the question as to how we know that the norms are reasonably accurate, in one sense, goes back to Hoeflin’s interpretation of reported Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination scores, and scores on possible other tests used in norming the Mega Test, such as Cattell Verbal (also called Cattell B). Someone once sent me the data from the “Omni sample” of Mega Test scores, with known scores on other tests and correlations, which is how I know that the two mentioned educational tests provided the bulk of the norming data. I assume that Hoeflin had the population percentiles of the S.A.T. scores and used those as the main source of the Mega Test norms.
But there is more. Over time I have come to understand that the high-range score distribution itself contains information that is likely of an absolute nature and may help to anchor the norms or keep them consistent over time: The mode or modal range of high-range scores (when many scores are aggregated, for instance by combining the scores from many tests) occurs in the I.Q. 130s by current norms; below it, scores taper off steeply, above it, shallowly. This mode seems to be the point below which people feel less or not attracted to take high-range tests, and as such it should represent an absolute intelligence level; the level from where people are interested in intellectual endeavours, one might say.
Also, the level reached by the very highest scorers seems about constant over time, and falls between I.Q. 180 and 195 with the current norms. I am even carefully evolving to the viewpoint that this may be the highest intelligence level possible for any brain. So one could say that the norms in the high range are also defined by these two absolute (though coarse-grained) indicators (mode and maximum), not just by equation to scores from other tests. And, the number of scores that occur at these respective ranges are such that the current norms appear to be correct, that is, roughly in accordance with what one would expect given the predicted rarity in the general population of those I.Q. levels in a normal distribution. In fact one could theoretically norm the high range using these two indicators as anchor points, not needing scores from mainstream tests at all. And one could extend those norms linearly downward to include the normal range of intelligence, and the resulting scale might be better than that of actual mainstream tests normed directly on the general population. This is so because the general population and its average intelligence are changing, and therefore the norms of mainstream tests adapt to this change and are merely relative to the current population, not absolute. The high-range norms are the real, absolute indicator of intelligence.
The sample sizes of high-range tests vary from 0 to about 400, but for those with good norms mostly from 36 to 225 or so. The ideal number of test-takers to norm a test is about 64. More is not necessarily better, because as the submissions keep coming in and go into the triple-digit range, the later scores may not be fully comparable to the earlier scores anymore due to things like answer leakage and increased familiarity with item types, and the norms may be affected by that and become unfair to the earlier test-takers. This can be countered by replacing problems that have become too easy (have leaked answers) but that changes the test, which also makes later scores less comparable to earlier ones, and if you change more than a little bit, you have to call it a revision and start over at zero collecting statistics for that new version.
High-range tests that appear to have very large samples, like around 300 or more, have generally achieved this through undesirable manipulations like retesting under false names, or combining retests with first attempts in the same sample, and so on.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and, potentially, a tendency in a restricted set of personality types? Dr. Ronald Hoeflin was claimed to have the largest sample size of the high-range test constructors. Do you have the largest legitimate sample size of any high-range test constructor at this time, now, based on over a quarter century conscientiously gathering data? You were the most recommended person to interview for this series.
Cooijmans: In my experience, the best way to norm a high-range test is to rank-equate its raw scores to normed scores of the candidates on other tests. The other tests to be used should be selected based on their correlations with the object test; one sets the correlation threshold such that one obtains enough pairs. I have recently begun to set the threshold so that it maximizes
the quality of norms, as given by a mathematical expression that uses the number of pairs and the weighted mean correlation. Thus it is objective, avoiding human decision. The expression that represents quality of norms is operational and may be improved as insights advance; I mention this because I know some are inclined to take these statistics as final and absolute, but they are parameters or controls that one sets to tune the system.
I deny that high-range sample sizes are low. They are in the dozens to hundreds as I said above, and that is well into the range of mainstream test samples and more than enough for good statistics. Considering that the high range consists of only a fraction of the population, it is to be expected that the samples are smaller, and in fact they are not much smaller at all. The notion that mainstream I.Q. tests have enormous samples is mistaken. Typically they have several hundred per norm group. Norm groups exist for age ranges, but sometimes also for educational levels. In the Netherlands there are different levels of secondary schools, and mainstream I.Q. tests may have separate norms per level, sometimes even based on only a few dozen per level (like in a Netherlandic version of the WAIS some years ago). A test often used by Mensa was normed on 3,000 people, but divided over five age groups from 13 to 16 years, so the actual norms were based on 600 per age group. In other words, they used high school students. And such norms have often been used for decades, ignoring the inflation of scores called “Flynn Effect”. But in the minds of some people, the illusion is persistent that these “standard tests” are normed on hundreds of thousands or even millions, and form a kind of gold standard of I.Q. testing.
The largest samples are found in educational tests, but not as large as some think. In the Netherlands, a test called Cito-toets has long been used in the last year of primary school, yearly taken by about 100,000 children. But not normed on that number! The norms were established by administering an anchor test to a sample of about 4,500 shortly before the actual test, and then equating the anchor test scores to the actual test scores. This helped to keep the standard scores stable throughout the years (the contents of the anchor test would remain the same for a number of years, while that of the actual test changed per year).
My own Cito report from 1977 shows a percentile of 100, which is uncommon but probably means the actual value was above 99.95, as a later statistical report by Cito I got to study contained a table where percentiles were rounded to 100 if the actual value was above 99.95. I have asked Cito in the mid-1990s what the precise value was, but they could not tell me, they only had kept percentiles as whole numbers. Similarly, I inquired about my scores on a comprehensive test given to us in secondary school around 1980, something like the Differential Aptitude Test, but was told those scores had not been saved. We never got a score report for that test at the time, but I understood from teachers I had done extremely well, and on a parent’s evening (which my parents never attended) a teacher told the public that I was a one-off (“unicum” was the Netherlandic word used). This teacher died in 2013, incidentally.
On the whole, I believe that high-range psychometrics is much more careful than mainstream psychometrics when it comes to the quality of norms and handling of score inflation by causes like answer leakage or people becoming more familiar with particular item types.
I might have the largest sample size of current high-range test constructors. It includes over 3,000 individuals, over 6,500 scores on I.Q. tests scored by me, over 2,900 reported scores on other tests, and over 22,000 data points on personal details, including personality tests. But more importantly, I have organized that data in an accessible way and automated the processing of it. I did all the programming myself, including the statistical functions.
Regarding a potentially restricted set of personality types and self-selection, it is inevitable that persons in the high range of intelligence differ in personality from those in the normal range and from those in the low range. This does not invalidate the norms in the high range. In fact, intelligence itself is a major aspect of personality. Self-selection is less of a problem than it seems because in general, people like doing what they are good at, so those attracted to taking high-range tests will mostly be intelligent. This is also illustrated by the rareness of low scores; only 3.5 % of scores fall under I.Q. 120 and 15 % under 130 (and no, this is not because the norms are too high, as self-doubting candidates sometimes suggest). Precisely what is going on with intelligence, non-cognitive personality traits, and brain-related disorders in the high range, and how this leads to creativity and genius in some, is an interesting question and I hope to understand more of it later on.
Jacobsen: What is the structure of the data in high-range test results? Do homogeneous and heterogeneous tests change this?
Cooijmans: Data structure is so important that someone who starts out collecting data for some purpose should ideally think out the database design beforehand. Once you have collected a lot of data, it becomes hard to make big changes to the design. The data structure of high-range tests looks as follows:
At the top level there are five sections:
(1) Descriptive information records for each test or type of personal datum. Each test or datum has a record here, and each record contains fields that hold information such as the test name, its maximum score, its contents types, and whatever further descriptive information there is. Conceptually, one may even imagine the tests themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual tests in a database but think of the database as referring to tests that exist in a reality outside the database.
(2) Candidate records. Each candidate has a record here, and each record has fields that hold the personal data of the candidate, and the candidate’s scores on the respective tests. Notice that a record here has hundreds of fields, but most or all candidates have only part of those hundreds of fields filled, depending on how many tests they have taken (each test has a field).
Conceptually, one may even imagine the candidates themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual candidates in a database but think of the database as referring to candidates that exist in a reality outside the database.
Technically speaking, the test scores stored here are redundant insofar as they are also available from section (3), but for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(3) Test submission records. In this complex section, each test has a table, and each table has one record for each submission to that test, and each record has fields that hold information like some personal details of the candidate (corresponding to a record in (2)), score and possibly subscores, and the item scores, so for each item typically 0 or 1 for wrong or right, but any range of item scores is possible. Conceptually, one may even imagine the submitted answers themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual submitted answers in a database but think of the database as referring to submitted answers that exist in a reality outside the database.
Do make certain to understand the difference between “test” and “test submission”. Some say the first when they mean the latter, but the above paragraph illuminates the necessity to distinguish the one from the other.
In this section in particular there is some appropriate redundancy in the form of for instance sex and age of the candidate (also available from section (2)) and scores and subscores (can also be computed dynamically from the item scores). But for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(4) Test norm records. This complex section has a table for each test, and each table has one record for each possible score on that test, and each record has fields that contain the raw score and the corresponding norm (in my case this is a protonorm).
(5) Norming scale records. This section has one record for each norm as may be contained in (4), and each record has fields that hold the norm and corresponding values on other scales for that norm, for instance percentiles, proportions outscored per sex, and I.Q. if the actual norm is not an I.Q. (such as in my case, where protonorms are the norms contained in (4)).
This structure has emerged over time as a natural reflection of the data itself. Someone who starts from scratch may well find that a completely different approach works too. Perhaps one would rather avoid any redundancy? As long as one has thought it over carefully.
Jacobsen: What should be done with homogeneous and heterogeneous tests?
Cooijmans: I consider only heterogeneous tests able to give a good enough indication of general intelligence, and use the term I.Q. only for heterogeneous tests, not for homogeneous tests. Also I refuse to administer homogeneous tests because I do not want to confront people with a score that is a less good indicator of their intelligence, and do not want to facilitate people who want to show such a less good indicator to others and thus give a misleading impression of themselves.
Heterogeneous tests are tests that contain at least two different items types out of verbal, numerical, and spatial (sometimes I use “logical” as a type too). If one wants to study the intercorrelations of different homogeneous tests, the best way to do so is to use a heterogeneous test that has different homogeneous sections or subtests. One can then do correlation analysis or even factor analysis within such a sectioned heterogeneous test. That is also how factor analysis is traditionally done. A great advantage of this approach is that the sections or subtests will always have been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, and that is required for proper factor analysis.
Some of my heterogeneous tests have homogeneous subtests that are normed in their own right to “standard scores” (on the same scale as I.Q.), and in that case one can also compute the correlations of such a subtest with homogeneous subtests that reside in other such compound heterogeneous tests. But I dislike this complication and am striving to move to having only non-compound heterogeneous tests; that is, with sections not normed in their own right, or without sections, just with different item types mingled throughout the test. Another disadvantage of correlations between the subtests from different heterogeneous tests is that those subtests have been taken by different groups of candidates, so that proper factor analysis will not be possible, if one was thinking of that.
Jacobsen: People take multiple tests. They crunch those numbers. An implied claim of a real I.Q. from this crunching of numbers between multiple tests. Is there such a “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests?
Cooijmans: In theory there is, but in practice there are problems that hinder the computation of a real I.Q. across tests. In the high-range community of candidates, many have taken enormous numbers of tests, dozens at least, and sometimes more than a hundred. It is problematic to compute a real I.Q. in the usual way from all taken tests for reasons like the following: The intercorrelations of the tests are mostly unknown, and there are too many intercorrelations for them to ever be known in the first place. Some tests may have bad norms. Some scores may be fraudulent. If a selection is made from the taken tests to narrow it down, this may be a non-representative selection. For example, a candidate having taken thirty tests may like to have a real I.Q. computed from one’s top several scores, which are already way above the real level of the candidate, and then the computed I.Q. will be even higher than the average of those top several scores due to the formula used.
The formulas for computing a real I.Q., such as “Ferguson’s formula”, take the average of the input scores and add something based on the correlations between the tests. With a perfect correlation, the outcome is simply the average. The lower the correlation(s), the higher the outcome. With zero correlation, you get something like a full unit of spread on top of the average. This may be correct in theory, but in practice leads to inflated outcomes. Apart from using a non-representative selection from one’s scores, another cause of inflation with these formulas is the fact that the known correlations between the tests are often underestimations of the true correlations due to incompleteness of the data and restriction of range. The groups who have taken the respective tests have only limited overlap for any pair of tests, and this overlap may suffer from selective reporting, and all in all this depresses the correlations. And lower correlations mean that the formula will yield a higher outcome. Underestimated correlations inflate computed “real I.Q.’s”.
Also, when a person takes multiple tests, a learning effect may take place as a result of which the scores become somewhat higher. This increase then comes in addition to the compensation for imperfect correlation that is built into these formulas for “real I.Q.”
For tests scored by me, I have devised a “qualified average I.Q.”, which tries to avoid the problems with these “real I.Q.’s”. Since I always have the complete data, no selection bias can inflate the average. The problem of underestimated correlations inflating the outcome is avoided by not using the computed correlations but assuming perfect correlations. If it seems unfair not to compensate for imperfect correlations, one may imagine that the learning effect from taking multiple tests replaces this compensation, so to speak. Finally, the computation is resistant to outliers. This is not claimed to be someone’s real I.Q., but I believe it is better than something like “Ferguson’s formula”. The exact formula of the qualified average I.Q. is operational and may be perfected over time as needed.
Jacobsen: Is English-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres? Although, these tests are taken, to a limited degree, in many countries of the world in all/most regions of the world.
Cooijmans: Such bias is a problem, but how prominent it is depends on what one’s native language is and on whether one knows English. For other Germanic languages it is a smaller problem than for non-Germanic languages, and it is worst for East Asian languages. The fact that reference aids are allowed solves a big part of it, but for a nonnative English speaker there remains a disadvantage, which I have estimated at up to 5 I.Q. points. Without reference aids (on a verbal test that disallows reference aids) this would be more like 30 I.Q. points for this non-native English speaker, and for someone who does not know English altogether it is in my opinion better not to attempt the tests at all.
It certainly limits the global spread of test-takers, especially in the areas where few people know English and the local language is very different from Germanic languages. I have always thought that the best solution for this is that people in such areas create their own tests in their own languages.
In recent years it has become somewhat common for people to try tests in a language they do not know. Of course one has an unpredictable disadvantage then.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Cooijmans: That reservoir will likely be tapped almost regardless of the questions, as general intelligence expresses itself through virtually everything a person does or says. Important are things like having a wide diversity of questions and types of questions, and avoiding localized
transient subject matter like idioms, abbreviations, pronunciation matters, and local or fashionable knowledge, as such does not transcend barriers of language, culture, and age. Fundamental knowledge that is the same for everyone in the world is good; knowledge that is bound to a geographic area, in-group, or period is bad. For these reasons, and contrary to what some think, high-brow vocabulary and subject matter are more culture-fair than low-brow vocabulary and subject matter.
One should also be aware that learnt skills have no g loading; it is novel tasks that have g loading. Candidates sometimes complain that they have no idea what is expected from them when taking a test, or how to tackle it; but that is exactly the intention, that is how intelligence testing works! And candidates may be happy when they see a type of problem they have solved before because they know what to do then; but that is where their intelligence is NOT being used. Those problems have lost their g loading for them. So one should try to create problems that are different from what has been seen before, to enforce the use of intelligence.
To illustrate that even esteemed test constructors not always understand the loss of g loading of learnt skills, here is an anecdote: Some years ago on a social medium, I saw a test author proudly mention that his young child had scored over I.Q. 160 or so on one of his father’s tests; after extensive coaching by the father/test creator, of course!
Another observation regarding tapping into general cognitive ability: Good test problems are such that solving them is similar to making discoveries in the real world, unravelling the laws of nature and the universe.
Jacobsen: What are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these tests? So, they get artificially low scores on high-range tests. Also, what is the confusion made by smart (and, potentially, not-smart) people about time taken for a test to get a score and the intrinsic intelligence to get said score? You noted the latter point in one of the recent videos answering questions on your YouTube channel.
Cooijmans: The idiomatic use of “roadblocks” is an example of what should not be in an intelligence test. Such an idiom is only understood within a narrow linguistic region and a restricted time period. It can not be understood without already knowing what it means. It can not be understood from the word itself or its context. The avoidance of idioms requires high intelligence and an abstract-literal mind.
The test instructions state that there is no time limit. Yet some think that their score will be unrealistically high and invalid if they spend “too much” time. It has happened that someone said, “I have now been looking at this test for so long that I can not submit it any more, I found all the answers, it would not be fair”. But that is exactly the intention with untimed tests; that one continues until one finds no further solutions.
The confusion meant in the question is probably the notion that someone who uses less time is smarter than someone who uses more time to arrive at the same score. But the principle of untimed testing is that this is not so, and that “until one finds no further solutions” is the right amount of time, irrespective of how long that is. This principle is based on the finding that when the allowed time is increased on a timed test, the test’s g loading rises. With supervised tests one needs to have a time limit for practical reasons, but with unsupervised tests one can leave out the limit entirely.
I must add that I have nothing against supervised tests, provided they have a very broad time limit, something like three hours for a comprehensive test. But this is not feasible in the high-range testing practice. I can not get people from all over the world to travel to a place here where I can test them, and I can not set up testing locations worldwide in all countries. I tried, but the number of candidates willing to make use of such was negligible compared to regular unsupervised tests. So I stopped. And then there is always someone who says, “I would be willing to travel to you if you started with that again”. But one or two people is not enough to justify the significant effort and time put into such a project. If others wish to try it, go ahead.
Jacobsen: What is the intended age-range for high-range tests? How do these account for individuals younger and older than this range?
Cooijmans: From about 16 upward with no upper limit I would say. Older people do decline, but it is important that they participate in order to enable the study of this decline. Younger people are allowed to take the tests, and in practice, 12 years is about the lower limit. But they should be aware that they have not reached their adult level and will score lower than they will later be capable of. The steep increase of intelligence in childhood tapers off at about 16 and becomes shallow then, hence the idea that one enters one’s adult intelligence range at 16.
Another way to answer this would be “after puberty”. Individuals, sexes, and ethnic groups differ in their childhood development, then puberty messes everything up, and after puberty things have mostly settled. That is why childhood studies of mental ability are so misleading; they misrepresent possible sex and ethnic differences. Puberty has normally completed by or before age 16-17. Age of onset of puberty varies greatly per individual, sex, and population, and tends to be one to two years earlier for girls than for boys.
There are no separate norms per age group as that would hide the development of intelligence with age. And one wants to reveal that development, not hide it. Also, all candidates are treated and addressed as mentally mature adults, regardless of age. The development of intelligence with age plausibly differs per sex, which is why it should be studied within-sex; the most recent tabulation I made is at http://iq-tests-for-thehigh-range.com/statistics/age.html
Jacobsen: A modestly common/uncommon knowledge of sex differences in the measurement of intelligence: Men do better at visuo-spatial subcomponents and women do better at verbal-emotional processing. What is important in constructing and norming a test if these and other differences exist? What similarities exist to not change this process?
Cooijmans: There are indeed sex differences in aspects of mental ability. In constructing unsupervised high-range tests, it is not possible or meaningful to take these into account. One should just include the widest variety of item types usable in unsupervised tests and focus on high mental ability regardless of sex.
Women have the bad fortune that the aspects on which they are known to outscore men mostly require supervision and timing, and can therefore mostly not be included in unsupervised tests. According to Arthur Jensen in Chapter 13 of his book The g Factor, these aspects are simple arithmetic, short-term memory, fluency (for instance, naming as many as possible words starting with a given letter within a limited time), reading, writing, grammar, spelling, perceptual speed (for instance, matching figures), clerical checking (both speed and accuracy, things like underlining certain letters in a text, or digit/symbol coding), motor coordination, and finger and manual dexterity. This problem is less serious than it seems because these are mostly lowly g-loaded tasks (not by anyone’s decision but because it happens to be so) so that the overall score will not be affected much by their absence, but it may be affected somewhat. This is related to what was observed in my answer to “What are the core abilities…”
In norming, the proportion of high-range candidates outscored should be provided within-sex for reasons of transparency. I.Q. norms should be sex-combined as is usual.
Jacobsen: Cheaters exist. Frauds exist. How do you a) deal with frauds and cheaters on tests and b) prevent fraud and cheating on those tests? Have reference texts been a problem in this? Does artificial intelligence complicate matters more? (If so, how?)
Cooijmans: When I discover that someone committed fraud I will discard the fraudulent score in the database and make a note so that I can exclude that person from further testing and from society admission. This is sometimes complicated by the use of multiple false identities by such a person. If the person is a member of a society I am an administrator of, I will expel the person. In communication with other test creators or societies I may reveal what I know about the person if that seems appropriate. I do not believe there exists an organized system for sharing information about frauds between test creators, perhaps there should.
Attempting to prevent fraud is done, for instance, by not publishing the test itself, letting people prepay, not sending tests to known frauds and so on. And if I find out that answers to particular test items are published or spread somehow, I will do something about it; mostly it comes down to replacing the items, sometimes leading to a revised version of the test. Sometimes a test is withdrawn entirely.
I am not aware of reference texts that were involved in fraud. Artificial intelligence complicates things because frauds might consult it to solve test problems, which is not allowed as the test instructions state not to obtain answers from external sources but only use answers that one thought of by oneself. To reduce this complication I try to create problems for new tests so that current artificial intelligence, insofar as I apprehend it, can not solve them. I try to make the problems so that, once artificial intelligence becomes able to solve them, it will also be able to take tests and join societies on its own accord. I believe that will happen one day, but fear this day lies quite far into the future. If I had to guess I would say half a century.
Jacobsen: It helps to have other data from other tests and personal data for identity verification. What information from other tests is helpful/necessary for research purposes of high-range tests? What is an efficient and appropriate format to provide this score information? What personal data is necessary from candidates, if any? What information would be helpful for research purposes from candidates?
Cooijmans: Scores on other tests should best be reported in a format as follows, insofar as known:
[Test author or issuing organization] [Test name] [Raw score] [I.Q.] [Standard deviation of I.Q. scale used] [Percentile]
Scores should best be grouped by the first field (Test author), of course starting a new line for each score. Nowadays there exist hundreds of tests, and I can not know from the top of my head which test is from which author or organization, so if that first field is left out when reporting scores, which is common, this causes many minutes of extra work in processing that information.
Concerning personal information, at least name, sex, year of birth, country of origin, and highest achieved educational level. Some further information I collect is the educational levels of the biological parents, the presence of a psychiatric disorder, and the presence of such disorders among parents or siblings.
Notice that I find the exact date of birth not strictly needed. It is about studying the development of raw intelligence with age, and with adults, year of birth suffices. In childhood testing, one would want it to the month.
Regarding psychiatric disorders, I do not ask for the particular disorder as that would require too much detail, too many options, too much complication in the statistical processing of it.
And country of origin is a pragmatic imperfect proxy of origin. One might consider asking for race or ethnicity, but such categorization is logistically problematic when one looks into it, has many complications, may be considered unethical by some, and some may refuse to reveal their status.
Other data that might be useful to collect include religiousness and femininity/masculinity (independent of sex). The possible correlation between religiousness and high-range I.Q. could then be established, which many are wondering about. And one could verify the anecdotal observation that intelligent men are more feminine than average men, and intelligent women more masculine than average women. In other words, there is more gender diffusion in the high range, which would point to an optimum for intelligence somewhere between the average male and female positions on the femininity/masculinity dimension. Notice that the term “gender” is for once used correctly here. I am uncertain whether people would be able to simply report their own position on femininity/masculinity, or whether this would require a test or questionnaire.
Jacobsen: What is the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker now? What is the level of the most intelligent candidate now? What is the mean, median, and mode, of the scores of test-takers’ data gathered so far? Within a range of I.Q. 10 to 190 on an S.D. of 15, when should a candidate consider taking, or in fact take, high-range tests?
Cooijmans: The least intelligent seems to be in the I.Q. 80s. The frequency of such is one in thousands of high-range candidates. The most intelligent is plausibly between 185 and 195. One can not be certain yet about the accuracy of the norms there. And with candidates apparently far below the general population average, a problem is that they tend not to report usable information, so one has to resort to observation, life history facts they happen to mention, and aids like an online writing-to-I.Q. estimator.
The median is protonorm 401 (I.Q. 139) according to the latest computation I did of highrange quantiles. I never compute the mean, but that should be several I.Q. points higher because the distribution is skewed to the high side. The mode is protonorm 387 (I.Q. 137), but one could also say there is a modal range in the 130s. A mode always depends on how wide or narrow one chooses the classes of the frequency table.
People should consider taking high-range tests if they score above the 98th centile on some mainstream test, which is I.Q. 131 (or 130 on some tests that round differently). Below I.Q. 120 there is no reason to try high-range tests, but there is no objection to doing so anyway. There is a grey area from 120 to 130 because one does not score the same on different tests.
Jacobsen: What is efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Cooijmans: I have always used the square root of the weighted mean correlation of the test with other I.Q. tests as an estimation of the g loading. This works well for comparing different high-range tests. It is not a true g loading because the tests have not all been taken by the same group of candidates, but by different groups with limited overlaps, correlations obviously being computed for those overlaps. Also, when reported scores from other tests are involved, those may suffer from selective reporting, which depresses the correlations. If all the involved tests had been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, one would be close to a true g loading.
Another thing to consider is that high-range tests as I use them are almost all heterogeneous tests, so combining different item types within the test. But, in classical factor analysis, one uses a set of different homogeneous tests that have each been taken by each individual from a group. Typically, these are school exams for the various subjects administered to a school class, or subtests of a comprehensive psychological test like Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales. Via factor analysis, one then computes g and other factor loadings per subtest or exam, and these g loadings vary greatly and may be very low for some subtests. So this kind of analysis is not so much done with a set of heterogeneous tests; computing correlations between heterogeneous tests is more something seen in high-range psychometrics. In classical factor analysis, wide-range heterogeneous tests are considered pure indicators of g, and it is the loadings of the various subtests or exams that one is interested in.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Cooijmans: The first is answered in the previous question. For a superset of tests it is not needed to compute such a loading, the superset can be safely considered a near-perfect indicator of g.
Jacobsen: What seem like the most appropriate places for people to start when taking your tests–taking into account their own skill sets, or others’ tests for that matter?
Cooijmans: I would recommend the privacy of one’s home. If “places” is meant nonliterally – as one sees, I am not one of those pedants who take everything literally – then a real computer to view the test is best, or at the very least a decent laptop (although I am really against the unneeded use of battery-powered devices). A smart telephone is no place to start.
In case the non-literalness is even more remote, always start with the easiest tests. It is bizarre how it can occur to people to start out with the hardest tests, and how they subsequently can not understand what a score of zero means and keep asking for years thereafter what their I.Q. was on that test and if it means they are “gifted”. By looking at the test norms one can know how hard a test is. Nevertheless, I have recently ordered the list of available tests by difficulty to accommodate this.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Cooijmans: Constructors: Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, a Netherlandic person who withdrew from the I.Q. societies so I can better not name him, Edward Vanhove, Hans Eysenck, Bill Bultas, Laurent Dubois.
Tests: Mega Test, Magma Test, tests from the self-test books by Eysenck, Chimera Test, 916 Test.
Regarding Langdon, studying his tests and statistical reports was instructive, if only because it told me which approaches were not so successful in measuring high-range intelligence. This includes attempting to make it more or less culture-fair, using multiple choice with a small number of options, item weighting based on item analysis (gives too much weight to a small number of items, and also the fact that single items do not have constant statistical properties undermines the idea of item weighting based on those properties), selecting items for a shorter test based on their statistical behaviour in an earlier longer test (the items’ behaviour is different in different tests), and norming that shorter test based on statistics from the earlier longer test (norms become mostly too high then). Also, that statistics from classical psychometrics, such as the reliability coefficient, are woefully inadequate to assess the quality of a high-range test.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from making these tests and their variants?
Cooijmans: I assume this is about my tests, not the tests by others from the previous question. The main points have already been mentioned in the questions about counterintuitive findings and about g not diminishing much in the high range. I could add the observation that intelligence expresses itself in almost everything a person does or says. I did not know that when I started.
In case the question is about the tests from the previous question, I already answered it there for Langdon’s tests. With Hoeflin’s tests, I learnt the norming method of rank equation, and the destructive effects of fraud through retesting, false names, and cooperation. In correspondence with others in the 1990s, I was appalled when people proudly told me they were collaborating in a group to “crack” the Mega Test. When they told me they had retested under their own name or another name (the instructions said the test could be taken only once but Hoeflin allowed retests in practice). When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests under his own name, then his sister’s name, then the son of his sister’s name, with ever-increasing scores. When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests with rather low scores, then had some friendly correspondence with the person from the previous sentence, then took the tests again with the same scores as the highest scores of that person. When someone told me he had missed the Mega Society pass level by half a standard deviation, then retested and qualified. With “retest” I always mean “to take the same test again”.
Several of those meant in the previous paragraph showed me their answers (unasked) and suggested I use them to get into the Mega Society. I had rarely been so shocked and insulted as by the suggestion that I would be capable of such fraud. I do not understand how those types can live with themselves. Having said that, two of them committed suicide in that period.
And of course, such people publicly display or mention their highest (fraudulent) scores, not their honest scores. I remember a phone call with a Netherlandic Mensa member as if it was yesterday; “Yeah, the ‘Mega Test’, I am working on it with some people in Spain and east Asia. Yeah, we have it mostly figured out now, that ‘Mega Test’, ha ha ha…” This person killed himself not long thereafter. Not the “Beheaded Man”, incidentally; the history of I.Q. societies is riddled with suicides, and some of them appear to have made the right decision for once in doing so. That is one thing that gives hope then; that some can indeed not live with themselves in the end.
Jacobsen: I received some decent points about high-range tests from Mahir Wu. Credit to him for the raw materials and permission to reframe those points as questions here. He raises foundational points. First point: item answers should be rigorously unique. Why?
Cooijmans: If multiple answers to a problem are correct, this has disadvantages: The one answer may be easier to find than the other, so that candidates with the same credit may not really be of the same level because they found different answers. And candidates who see more than one possible answer may be confused and not know which is the “right” one. Also, there may be subjectivity in scoring those answers. With only one correct answer, these problems are mostly avoided.
Of course, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, once people start taking the test, it may sometimes occur that alternative valid answers are still found, and then one has to solve this, for instance by revising, replacing, or removing the item. Sometimes this can be done “in place”, especially early on when there have not been many submissions yet, and otherwise this may be done later in a revised version of the test.
And, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, there will always be people who “see” alternative answers through apophenia when they can not find the real answer. The apophenic delusions stick rigidly in their minds and they become convinced they have solved the problem, although the logical flaws are obvious to an objective observer. In popular artificial-intelligence speak, people “hallucinate” when unable to find the real solution. But that is inherent to intelligence testing; escaping this delusional rigidity is part of high intelligence, or rather, is an aspect of having a wide associative horizon. You will need that mental flexibility too when solving real-world problems. Sometimes, you have to take a step back and make a fresh start to eventually find the real solution.
To illustrate that apophenic delusions are very real and persistent, I want to give some examples: I have a Test for Extrasensory Perception, which is exactly what it says. It is not an intelligence test, I did not hide any clues or patterns in it. Still, some years ago an otherwise normal person sent me a document of many pages, describing his decoding and solutions for it in long association chains. He was convinced he had found patterns that I had deliberately put there. Since this was explicitly not the case, this example proves that candidates may suffer from apophenic delusions all by themselves, and that this is not caused by ambiguity of the test items.
And long ago someone published articles in I.Q. society journals, explaining how he had found references to the appearances of particular comets hidden in poems of certain literary authors.
And another one produced a long series of essays, analysing the dates of events related to the Roman Catholic church by counting the days separating the events, finding numerical patterns therein, and concluding that the Vatican was conducting a dirty scheme that would culminate in some horrific project (I am not allowed to disclose it I think) of which he predicted the exact date in the near future.
I am not naming these examples to ridicule people, but to show that such delusions can be extremely strong in apparently sane people. When taking high-range tests, it occurs often. If it happens to you, rest assured, for only in a small minority of cases does it lead to full-blown psychosis.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, the test item answers with ambiguity should be disallowed. Why should these not be allowed, if agreeing with Wu? If disagreeing with Wu, why?
Cooijmans: I agree for the reasons given in my previous answer. But as said, sometimes you only discover ambiguity as test submissions are coming in, when studying comments by candidates.
Jacobsen: Why should test items give sufficient clues for discovery and solution by a test-taker?
Cooijmans: Because otherwise it is impossible to solve the items, obviously.
Jacobsen: Following the last question, why would permission of a mere guessing logic spoil a test?
Cooijmans: Because correct answers that result from guessing do not stem from the candidate’s mental ability being used. Such answers are random variance and thus reduce the test’s reliability, and therefore also its validity. Test items should be made so that the probability of getting them right by accident is so small that, on average, candidates will gain less than one raw score point in the total score by guessing. This does permit multiple-choice items, but they should be cleverly constructed so that the likelihood of a correct guess is very small. For instance, by letting the candidate choose several options from a list instead of just one.
Incidentally, I have heard people suggest that multiple-choice items that can be answered correctly by guessing reveal intuition and/or psychic ability, but even if that is true, I believe that intelligence tests should not measure intuition or psychic ability. I am also not a fan of penalties for wrong answers with multiple-choice; supposedly, this corrects for guessing, but of course, a candidate who chooses a wrong answer, thinking it is right and not guessing, is then penalized for the wrong reason. The penalty does not distinguish between guessing and being simply wrong, and in the latter case, no penalty should apply. For clarity, a penalty constitutes a negative item score, typically a subtraction of a fraction of a point, depending on the number of answering options for that item.
An anecdotal experience regarding multiple-choice tests: Once, the instructions to one of my multiple-choice tests said, “There are no penalties for wrong answers”. After a while I removed that instruction because some candidates demanded a perfect score based on it. They took it as, “You will always get a perfect score no matter what you answer”. Of course they were wrong, because one starts out with zero points at the beginning of the test, not with the maximum, so “no penalties for wrong answers” in no way implies a perfect score. But if people are so willingly and stubbornly taking it the wrong way, I am not going to pain my brain trying to formulate it even better than it already was.
Jacobsen: How can the sufficiency of each test item’s uniqueness become integrated into the overall test (even test schema) to prevent the identical pattern from emerging too much in a single test (or test schema)?
Cooijmans: If I understand the question correctly, I would say that a test should consist of a broad diversity of items with mostly different patterns. They need not be all completely different; maybe two or three of a similar looking pattern are acceptable, provided the implementation of the pattern is different every time, so that the candidate is forced to recognize what is going on in each case.
In some of my tests, like “Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree”, I had a series of about ten problems of the same kind in ascending difficulty, and that did not work well. Many candidates were able to solve all the problems in such a series. The items work as examples for each other and become too easy. So I concluded that it is better not to have more than 1 to 3 items of a similar kind in a test, and even those should differ sufficiently in implementation.
Jacobsen: How can the inspiration from, even addition of, other authors’ test items degrade a test’s quality by giving more clues to test-takers to test items otherwise unsolved without them?
Cooijmans: If a test contains an item that is similar to an item in another test by another author, the one item may function as an example to the other and thus make it easier. I have experienced a few times that a difficult problem in one of my tests appeared to have become much easier. Eventually, a candidate told me that a test by another test creator had a very similar but easier problem, and that made my difficult problem suddenly solvable. I then replaced that item.
And, if a candidate is familiar with a particular item variant from other tests and is thus better able to solve such items, those items also lose their g loading for that candidate. It becomes a learnt skill, and learnt skills have no g loading.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what about the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors?
Cooijmans: If the question is about references inside a test to specific test items by other test authors, I am not aware of such references, possibly because I never look at tests by others. If such references exist, they probably help the candidate, which one may not want. But it is better not to have test items that resemble items by other authors altogether.
Jacobsen: In some sense, is it truly difficult to avoid this issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another inspired–by the former–author, especially as more high-range tests are constructed? Wu references his latest test, “[Mystery],” as an example of an adherence to the close application of this principle, where the evidentiary effects of others’ tests become hard to apply to it. Consequently, results for “[Mystery]” are submitted much less.
Cooijmans: With so many high-range tests in existence, it will be getting harder to avoid similarities between tests by different authors indeed. I myself never look at tests by others and create problems independently. In an earlier question about avoiding or minimizing test constructor bias I name some independent sources of inspiration. These do not include tests by others. One should never look at tests by others for inspiration for new test items!
Jacobsen: Why should scale and norm not be overly subjective? Wu references T. Prousalis–link– and you–link, link. Also, why does a median score for many tests with a corresponding IQ of 145 (SD15), or higher, make little sense?
Cooijmans: Norms should be objective and correct, otherwise they are not comparable between tests. A few possible causes of incorrect norms are the following: When a beginning test scorer starts out administering tests, initially one will only have reported scores by candidates to base the norms on. Unfortunately, many candidates are dishonest in reporting scores, leaving out lower scores and reporting the higher ones, or even reporting retests or fraudulent scores. This gives an upward bias, and the norms based thereon may be ridiculously too high, even 10 to 20 I.Q. points too high on average. In the longer term, this may sort itself out as one acquires more, and more true, data about the candidates’ scores. Theoretically, this could also be solved by different test constructors sharing their candidate data to thus make the candidates’ true scores on other tests available, but I believe this might be unethical and a violation of privacy. I know some test designers are currently publishing candidate scores online, but that too seems unethical, and also I do not know if that published data is trustworthy and am hesitant to use it.
For information, a few test creators have sent me their complete data for a particular test of theirs, including candidate names, and I have scored a test by another author (Bill Bultas) myself in the past, so for those tests I have unbiased data.
Another cause of incorrect norms is megalomania by the test creator. There exist authors who delusionally reckon themselves to be profoundly intelligent, but really have much lower I.Q.’s, typically in the 130s to 140s at most. So when they receive test submissions by people whom
they perceive as being at roughly their level of understanding, they feel compelled to give out much too high I.Q. scores, otherwise they would have to admit to themselves they are not really as intelligent as they believe.
A median of I.Q. 145 or higher is unrealistic. The high-range population is roughly the upper segment of the general population, cut off at about I.Q. 130. This is not a perfectly clean cut, but if it were, and for the sake of illustration, the following would be necessarily true: With a clean cut at 131 (98th centile) the median would be 135 (99th centile, so halfway the cut and the top). With a clean cut at 135 (99th centile) the median would be 139 (99.5th centile). A median of 145 (99.87th centile) would imply a clean cut at 142 (99.74). This is not consistent with the known population of high-range candidates; most of them are below 142, or at least I believe the evidence for that is more than sufficient.
My experience is that the median of many high-range scores is almost always between 136 and 141. The fundamental cause of this, I think, is that only from the low to mid-130s onward people are interested in intellectual endeavours like taking difficult tests. Below that, it tapers off steeply. Above that, it tapers shallowly, and that shallow curve reflects the actual distribution of those
high I.Q.’s in the general population. And this distribution is apparently such that the median of people wanting to take high-range tests ends up around 136-141. The mode is several points lower than the median, the mean several points higher. The mode probably represents the point from whereon the high-range distribution follows the general population distribution (upward). The mode is, more or less, the cut-off point meant in the previous paragraph.
Jacobsen: The following are questions formulated based on input questions provided by Matthew Scillitani. What is the process of making preliminary norms before submissions have been given for a test?
Cooijmans: If it is a fully new test and no data exists for its contents at all, I estimate the minimum raw scores that a Glia Society member and a Giga Society member, respectively, should obtain. So for each problem, I look at it and ask myself, “Should a Glia/Giga Society member be able to solve this?” Then I interpolate between those two scores, and extrapolate outward until I reach the edges of the test, where I taper with 5 protonorm points per raw score point. The edges are each sized half the square root of the total possible raw score range.
Jacobsen: There seems to be a stigma around high-range tests. Is there a process to normalize taking them or having them exist in the first place?
Cooijmans: There are indeed many who do not take high-range tests seriously, and this includes prominent figures like the late Hans Eysenck. In one of his “test yourself” books, I remember he was skeptical about the possibility of measuring intelligence in the high range, and even ridiculed it. He provided a number of absurdly complex problems “for the super-intelligent”, which appeared to be a parody on high-range testing.
Much of the distrust and denial regarding high-range testing stems from the fear that one might not oneself belong to the most intelligent; it is comfortably reassuring to say to oneself, “Those tests are just puzzles by amateurs and their scores are meaningless, we can not measure intelligence beyond the 99th centile”. It is a way to protect one’s delusion that no one is verifiably smarter than oneself.
Another cause of the stigma is the inescapable fact that there are fewer women than men in the high range. This is such a taboo that denying the validity of high-range testing is imperative to the politically correct academic, if only for that reason.
A possible process to normalize high-range testing would be to establish it as a recognized branch of psychology at universities. I suspect this would require that we first reverse the decades-long neo-Marxist occupation of academia and make universities into places of genuine science practised by the most intelligent again. A concrete application of high-range psychometrics would be to devise proper admission procedures for universities to undo the dumbing-down that has taken place there over the past half century. The fact that the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination were about the only mainstream tests with validity in the high range illustrates how appropriate high-range testing is in the context of college and university.
For completeness, it should be mentioned that psychologist Lewis Terman (1877-1955) has tried to measure intelligence in the high range with two forms of his “Concept Mastery Test”. These were applied to subjects selected as children based on childhood scores of 140 and
higher, and followed up in adulthood with the two Concept Mastery Tests. These were verbal tests highly loaded on vocabulary, not permitting references aids. In an unsupervised situation (which was and is how they are typically administered) it is exceedingly easy to cheat on such a test by using dictionaries and thus score absurdly far above one’s real level. Also, non-natives of the English language have a large disadvantage, in the order of 30 I.Q. points. So while these tests were non-robust against cheating and strongly culture-dependent, at least he tried. Since Terman has also been criticized for his belief in eugenics, heredity of intelligence, and racial differences therein, he forms an intersection between high-range psychometricians and hereditarians, so to speak.
Having mentioned the Concept Mastery Tests, I should warn that the scores mostly quoted for them are raw scores, not I.Q.’s. Ronald K. Hoeflin has administered those tests for a while too, also unsupervised, so one should not rely too much on possible reported Concept Mastery scores from test candidates as they may be hugely inflated through fraud.
Jacobsen: Have test construction and norming processes evolved in the aggregate for you?
Cooijmans: Of course, when one has been doing something for decades, one has implemented improvements. If I have to give examples, I have become more concerned with locking in a unique answer and avoiding ambiguity and subjectivity in scoring, and I am also inclining more to having tests contain a surplus of difficult problems and a minority of easier ones. Regarding norming, one of the first things I learnt was that z-score equation – equating means and standard deviations – results in incorrect norms because raw test scores tend not to behave linearly, which is required for z-score equation to make sense. So I went with rank equation. Over the years I automated ever more of the process, so that now I can norm a test in 10 to 30 minutes mostly, while originally this took several whole days.
I also learnt to formulate problems better to avoid misunderstanding. For instance, people skilled at mathematics may have a bizarre deformation that makes them interpret numbers differently from normal humans. If I say, “There are three apples on the table”, any sane person will understand that there are three apples on the table. But not mathematicians! The mathematician will understand that there are three OR MORE apples on the table. Because the mathematician thinks, “If there are four or five or six… apples on the table, there are three apples on the table too”. So to the mathematician you have say, “There are exactly three apples on the table”.
Jacobsen: What are the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test?
Cooijmans: Easiest: Finishing off the eventual test once the problems have been conceived, and creating the database fields that will receive the incoming submissions. Also, norming is easy on the whole. Hardest: Creating the problems. This has got ever harder, the more tests I made. I try not to repeat myself too much, and try to take into account that the Internet as a search tool has become ever more powerful. The various types of fraud are hard to deal with. I have no sympathy or tolerance for the individuals behind it. The hardest nowadays is to create test problems that are robust against the developments that enable dishonest people to cheat. Those who have spread test answers should reveal the names of the recipients of the answers, so that we can clean up the statistics. And if they sold answers for money, they have to refund, and possible profit they made by investing the fraudulently acquired money should be donated to a good cause.
Jacobsen: Of your tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special to you?
Cooijmans: To name a few, Test of the Beheaded Man, Cooijmans Intelligence Test (any form), Daedalus Test, The Nemesis Test, Test For Genius (any form), Only Idiots, The Gate, The Piper’s Test, Dicing with death, The Smell Test. Each in their own way, they demand the candidate to operate at the summit of cognition in ways that are not trivial but tie in to the essence of existence itself. That is what I have generally striven for.
Jacobsen: In pre-2000, you wrote some articles in Netherlandic on test design. Are there any insights from those articles not replicated here or elsewhere worth replicating, or reiterating, here?
Cooijmans: I looked through the articles, and the following points may be worth mentioning:
Marilyn vos Savant occurs briefly in one article; she is known for having “the world’s highest I.Q.” according to the Guinness book of world records. I would like to add here that someone once showed me a copy of a page from Megarian No. 6 (October 1982) where her actual scores on the Stanford-Binet and preliminary Mega tests are reported. “Megarian” was the journal of the Mega Society then.
Also nice is the early history of Mensa, as related by founder Victor Serebriakoff in one of his books, which was reviewed by David Gamon in the Mensa International Journal of January/February 1995. The founders at the time believed to be selecting members at the level of 1 in 3000 (some sources say 1-in-6,000) but later discovered a mistake in the procedure, as a result of which they had been selecting at 1-in-50. Not wanting to send the bulk of members away again, they left it as it was.
Also mentioned somewhere is Kevin Langdon, creator of the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test (1977, I think) and founder of the Four Sigma society. If one is interested in high-range psychometrics, the statistical reports published by Langdon in the 1970s and later are worth looking at. Langdon’s approach differed from Hoeflin’s in that Langdon first expressed the candidate’s performance as “scaled score” (some conversion of the raw performance) and then equated means and mean deviations of scaled scores and scores on other tests, resulting in a linear relation between I.Q. and scaled score. Hoeflin, on the other hand, normed raw scores directly via rank equation, resulting in a non-linear relation that reveals the non-linear nature of simple raw scores.
This is a good time to explain there are different ways to arrive at a scaled score: The simplest way is to scale raw scores linearly from 0 to 100 or 0 to 1,000, for instance. Some test constructors have done that (Alan Aax and Rijk Griffioen, I remember) but it brings no advantage compared to raw scores; the non-linearity of raw scores remains, obviously, when the relation between raw and scaled scores is linear.
If the goal is to obtain a more linear (intervallic) scale, there has to be some weighting or balancing, and a crude but solid method is to give a certain class of problems that appear harder or more important extra credit a priori, regardless of item statistics. This was done by Hoeflin with the Ultra Test, where non-verbal problems get two points. This is effective and without problems, but the resulting weighted scores are still far from linear, if one had any concerns about that.
A more refined way is to give items individual weights based on item analysis. In theory this should yield an intervallic scale, but there are serious disadvantages: (1) A small number of problems tend to carry most of the weight after weighting thus, which is always dangerous; (2) It adds an extra layer of sampling error because one relies on the correctness of the item statistics, and my experience is that item statistics are not constant but differ from sample to sample, so that one is building on quicksand as it were; (3) The intuitive simplicity of a raw score is lost; the candidate can not know the number of correct answers from the weighted score.
My preference is to use a simple raw score, or in cases where it seems appropriate a crude weighting that does not rely on item statistics, such as in the example of the Ultra Test. If these methods do not result in a meaningful ranking of candidates, that test is bad to begin with and no advanced item weighting will fix it. I accept that raw scores are non-linear, and the conversion to linearity takes place in the norming of raw score to I.Q.
That last sentence leads to the question, “How do we know that I.Q. is a linear scale?” The answer is that I.Q.’s are deviation scores; they denote a distance to the mean in a hypothetical normal distribution. Note the word “hypothetical”; it is not claimed that intelligence follows a normal distribution in the physical reality. But the tacit assumption in statistics is that when a distribution is normal (Gaussian), its underlying scale is linear (intervallic). So when you force test scores into a normal distribution, you create a linear scale, or that is the unspoken idea. This is expressed in the way we identify points on the scale in terms such as “2 standard deviations above the mean”. This implies an underlying linear scale; after all, if the scale were not linear, the one standard deviation would not be the same as the other, so it would make no sense to say “2 standard deviations above the mean”! In fact, the mere computation of an arithmetic mean assumes an underlying intervallic scale, as it involves summation.
So the bottom line is, if we take care that the frequencies of I.Q.’s beyond various points of the scale do not differ too much from their theoretical rarities in the normal distribution, we may assume that I.Q. is linear. I say this without claiming that deviation I.Q.’s are the best way to express intelligence; but I do not have a better way at the moment.
Jacobsen: Some submitted questions anonymously. These are the adaptations of those questions: Personally, do you know any geniuses? If you do not know any personally, where are all of the geniuses?
Cooijmans: I have to say that when it gets anonymous, the quality goes down. Imagine that I answered “no” to the first question! How insulting that would be to everyone I know! Since a genius is someone who exercises a lasting influence in any field, inherently it can only be known in hindsight who was one, like long after the genius’ death. It is well possible that several people I know will turn out to be geniuses, but we do not know yet who they are.
In history books you will find a lot of identified geniuses.
Jacobsen: Why refer to these individuals in this way, i.e., as geniuses? What traits characterise them?
Cooijmans: The word “genius” comes from the Latin “gignere”, meaning to conceive, to bring forth, to cause. Francis Galton used the word “eminence” for what is now mostly called genius.
The traits of genius, according to me, are intelligence, conscientiousness, and a wide associative horizon. Genius is not talent. It requires talent, but talent alone does not suffice. One will need to apply that talent in order to make a lasting contribution.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a genius? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cooijmans: Naturally, someone of my enormous modesty and humility would never call oneself a genius. I leave that to the scores of future generations who will devote their lives to the study of my work.
Jacobsen: What do you think has been the contribution of your I.Q. Tests for the High Range? Is it a work for study by others or a hobby?
Cooijmans: The contribution lies in studying the measurability of intelligence in the high range, and some other questions related to that as stated at https://iq-tests-forthe-high-range.com/mission.html. It is certainly worthy of being studied by others, and others should also undertake such study independently. It is not just a hobby, except in the sense that one can make one’s hobby into one’s work.
Jacobsen: Who are others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence?
Cooijmans: This can only be answered properly for people who were (already) working longer ago, before the current generation of high-range testers. That would be Lewis Terman, Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Xavier Jouve, and Laurent Dubois. For the ones who came after these, it is too soon to judge their merit.
In addition, there have been some people who created tests that looked truly good to me, but who only kept scoring their tests briefly and then withdrew from testing, so that little or no usable data resulted. These people exemplify what I said a few questions ago: that talent is not genius, but merely a requirement for genius. They had talent, but did not use it to make a lasting contribution to high-range testing.
Jacobsen: What is the most common mistake people make when submitting feedback about your tests?
Cooijmans: Assuming that they have understood a test item correctly, and then commenting on it from that assumption.
Jacobsen: What aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing?
Cooijmans: It can be confusing if people send feedback before sending answers. I have to be careful not to help them by responding. Nevertheless, in case the feedback concerns a mistake in a test problem, it can be useful, especially when a test is very new.
Jacobsen: The most common Marathon Test Numeric Section score is a perfect 44 out of 44. What lessons have you learned from this high-end score saturation?
Cooijmans: That the problems are not hard enough. Also that a series of similar problems of increasing difficulty tends to be too easy on the whole. And that, to make a numerical test hard enough, either very difficult mathematics-biased problems are needed, or problems that implement a pattern that needs to be recognized. The latter seem the most fair, the former seem to give an advantage to people skilled at mathematics.
Jacobsen: When creating high-range questions, is there a consideration of steering test takers toward wrong answers? Are extant questions ever modified in this way?
Cooijmans: Obviously, steering test-takers toward wrong answers is the whole point of creating good test items, not only in high-range testing but also in mainstream intelligence tests. There is even a word for it: distractors. Multiple-choice tests, omnipresent in mainstream psychological testing, contain answering options that are wrong but appear more plausible than the intended correct answer.
Thus, a candidate who really can not solve any problem at all will score below the chance guessing level, and this lower level is called the “pseudo-chance level”. For instance, if a test has 40 problems and 5 answering options per item, the chance guessing level is 8 correct, but the pseudo-chance level may be only 5 correct due to distractors.
Extant questions are not generally modified in this way.
Jacobsen: Which books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics have provided helpful accurate understandings of psychological measurement, psychometric concepts, etc., for you? Others may find some fruitful plumbing there.
Cooijmans: The most specific sources regarding high-range testing are the various statistical or norming reports by Kevin Langdon and Ronald K. Hoeflin, as issued by them in the 1970s through 1990s (Hoeflin only started in the 1980s, I think). These helped to see how high-range tests are normed, and also aided in the interpretation of scores on a lot of those old American tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Miller Analogies Test, Army General Classification Test and more. The “Omni sample” of the Mega Test contains many scores of those versus Mega Test scores, and as such is an important anchor of high-range tests to the general population, especially so since those old tests in some cases did discriminate into the high range. This can not be said about the newer dumbed-down versions of the educational and military tests, whose validity tends to end at the 99th centile, and for whose interpretation one should consult the information provided by the relevant issuing organizations.
What one can see for instance in the Omni sample is that the old G.R.E., S.A.T., and Army General Classification Test correlated quite well with the Mega Test, while on the other hand the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet, by many regarded as the gold standard of I.Q. testing, appeared to lack any validity in the high range. This observation holds true until today in data collected by myself, except for the old Army General Classification Test on which I have almost no data.
Then, an actual text book on psychometrics I have studied is the Netherlandic “Testtheorie” by P.J.D. Drenth and K. Sijtsma from 1990. This covers both classical psychometrics and the newer item-response theory.
Another useful book, a bit more general, is “Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences”, second edition, by Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, from 1988.
An important book on intelligence testing is The g factor by Arthur Jensen, from 1998. While not intended as a psychometrics textbook, it does contain a lot of advanced information on psychometrics, including some factor analysis, often in the footnotes.
As it happens, there is also an e-book called The g factor by Christopher Brand, from 1996, also containing information on psychometrics and some factor analysis.
A book on statistics in general (not psychometrics) I have studied is the Netherlandic Statistiek in de praktijk by David S. Moore and George P. McCabe. I see there is an English version too, Introduction to the Practice of Statistics; 2nd edition (1993).
A book dealing specifically with multivariate statistics such as correlation, regression, and factor analysis is Using Multivariate Statistics (third edition) by Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell (1996).
I also still have my mathematics books from secondary school, one of which contains chapters on statistics and probability calculation. Occasionally I look through those to refresh these basics of my knowledge in this field.
Finally I want to add that the history of statistics and of mathematics is informative regarding psychometrics. Reading about such will teach you that statistics has been closely related to psychological testing since the 19th century, and that probability calculation was developed for the purposes of gambling and insurance.
The history of mathematics in general, found for instance in A Concise History of Mathematics by Dirk Jan Struik, tells us that mathematics originates in the early days of agriculture, cities, and large-scale administration. That is, within the past ten thousand years or so, the holocene, after the last glacial period. Computing the area of parcels of land required mathematics.
I suspect that the intelligence of the people coming out of the last glacial period was primarily of a visual-spatial nature, and as they became settled and practised agriculture, built cities, and administrated societies, they needed higher numerical ability as well as written language. I imagine that spoken language existed long before that, originally in the form of words without grammar some two million years ago to coordinate hunting in groups in early Homo, and later on with grammar, perhaps in the days of Homo sapiens.
Language is not unique to humans incidentally, but exists in other beings too, such as birds, primates, and whales. Animals like crows are likely at the intelligence level of early Homo, but I am uncertain if their physicality will allow a further development such as has taken place in Homo. Key points like the manufacturing of tools and mastery of the fire may require arms, hands, fingers, and thumbs such as humans have.
Visual-spatial ability is also not restricted to humans, but found in many animal species, in particular to enable predating. As such, visual-spatial ability should be a few hundred million years old, as that is when the first predators came.
The importance of this history of abilities is that when we test abilities now, the results we get, such as the intercorrelations of various abilities, are as it were a fossil record of this evolution. A development that I believe takes place in civilized societies is the erosion of the original visual-spatial ability in favour of verbal ability. A high level of verbal ability in the absence of the foundation of visual-spatial ability, I think, leads to dishonesty, deceit, evil, decadence, and societal collapse.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Abstract
Daniel Shea, M.Sc. is the founder and CEO of Chatoyance. Shea possesses a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of New Hampshire, with several years of industry experience in software engineering. He has published freelance articles on foreign exchange market strategy analysis and has published software analyzing fractals in the foreign exchange markets. Leveraging his experience with software design and financial markets, he started Chatoyance with the intent of transforming the way independent investors approach the foreign exchange market. Shea discusses: interest in test construction; the earlier tests and Chris Cole and Dean Inada; the origin and inspiration; Cole and Inada; training in general statistics and software engineering; skills and considerations; help with problem schemas, adaptivity, user interfaces, and re-norming; verbal problems and replicability across other problem types; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the Adaptive IQ Test website; tests and test constructors; and the making of a test.
Keywords: adaptive generative test challenges, adaptive IQ Test, challenges in test-taking assumptions, Chris Cole, Daniel Shea, Dean Inada, Adaptive IQ Test development, Dynamic test development, Glen Wooten, high-range IQ societies, item curve adaptation, John Fahy, Mega and Titan Test item analysis, multidimensional high-range tests, Nathan Hays, norming and re-norming high-range tests, problem schemas and adaptivity, Rick Rosner, test security and leakage, verbal problems in high-range tests, Werner Couwenbergh.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Daniel Shea: My involvement came about from conversations with Chris Cole and Dean Inada. There had been an effort to implement an adaptive, generative test many years ago, but it reached a point where conceiving of new high-range questions became increasingly difficult and there were some technical challenges in actually coding a platform to take such a test. Since I had some background on the technical side, I offered to assist.
16
Jacobsen: What were the general realizations about the earlier tests, e.g., The Mega Test, The Titan Test, The Ultra Test, and The Hoeflin Power Test, of Ronald Hoeflin (Mega Society), and then the need to work in coordination with others for you, i.e., Chris Cole and Dean Inada, to develop a more dynamic test? This form of test development began before you.
Shea: These tests, and other high-range tests available today, are untimed and unsupervised, which introduces many self-evident problems, chief among them being that people will leak answers or collaborate with others. Some of these issues may have been less prevalent at the time these tests were originally constructed in the 1980s and 1990s, but for several years now, many of the answers to these tests have been made available on various message boards or Usenet groups. In some instances, the answers are incorrect or there are multiple answers floating around which muddy the waters, but this is not always the case.
A test should not be entirely discarded just because one or two answers have been leaked. On the other hand, if enough answers have been leaked that one could achieve a sufficiently close score to a given society’s cutoff, that society may need to take a vote on whether to continue to allow the test to be used for admission. There is an ongoing effort to identify tests that have
been compromised to such a degree, but that judgment call is not an exact science.
Much of the background on the motivation for a dynamic test has been covered in Chris Cole’s September 2001 article “How to Protect High-Range Tests” in Noesis #155. To quote, “In looking at many tests, there is a certain pattern that appears. It is possible to classify the problems into groups. For example, Ron Hoeflin has a group of problems about cells formed by intersecting various solids such as spheres, cubes, etc. The solution to one member of this group (say, three cubes) does not help much in the solution of another (say, two cones and a sphere). Yet it might be the case that there is an underlying mathematics that yields the answers to all of the problems in the group. Then a very large number of problems could be generated, where the solution to one problem would not help in the solution of another. This would be ideal for creating an online test, because cheating would be impossible.” I would probably caution that this does not make cheating outright impossible, but introduces another layer of security.
Jacobsen: Similarly, what was the origin and inspiration for joining this small team – the facts and the feelings?
Shea: In a way, the fact that the team was so small made it easier to join. There was a website, mental-testing.com, that had an initial version of the adaptive test, but it was not working at the time that I joined, so the decision was made to rewrite it from the ground up. With greenfield projects in general, there are more degrees of freedom and less rigidity in its development. The ability to make some sort of impact, even if only on a technical level, was appealing. There is also the fact that the Ultra Test and the Power Test, which are the only tests used for Mega Society admission at this point in time, will eventually be spoiled in their entirety, at which point there will be no viable test for admission without some suitable replacement.
Jacobsen: As an open credit to Cole and Inada, what have been each of their major contributions to the development of the Adaptive IQ Test (2003-present)? (Anyone else, too?) For examples, “How to Protect High-Range Tests” by Chris Cole comments on the difficulties in test questions/high-range tests remaining non-compromised in the internet era, the cost in open-sourcing test creation and norming, and the possibility in designing high-range tests with more foundational principles of math to generate questions (through schemas). Subsequently, “Reply to Chris Cole on Norming High-Range Tests” by Dean Inada commented on something like probability sloping for relative hardness of problems per person and problem. They were discussing, in essence, some foundations for – what would become – the Adaptive IQ Test.
Shea: The background discussed in those articles serves as the foundation for what the Adaptive IQ Test has become in its current iteration. Dean Inada, in his response article, writes “we’ll want a better method of norming the tests than simply ranking people by the number of questions they get correctly, since one person may be asked harder questions than another. I suggest a method that tries to estimate for each question the probability of getting it right or wrong as a function of a person’s percentile rank in the population, this rank is estimated by multiplying the generally increasing and decreasing functions for the problems gotten right and wrong.” The Adaptive IQ Test implements this, modeling an individual curve for the test-taker based on their responses to each administered item and its item curve, and presenting a problem variant accordingly.
Jacobsen: You do not have a formal background in psychometrics. Most people in the high-range construction space do not have a formal background in psychometrics. However, you have training in general statistics and software engineering, i.e., stuff used at Chatoyance, helped with the work on the Adaptive IQ Test?
Shea: As noted, I do not have a formal background in psychometrics. My involvement in the project has been largely technical in nature, drawing on prior general software engineering skills to implement the problem schemas and adaptive component, design the user interfaces for each problem (some may require drawings, some may require filling in a grid, etc.), automate the norming and curving for each item as results come in, and so on. Indeed, the largest challenge has been in conceiving of suitable problem schemas, which I am happy to brainstorm but of course defer to those with a deeper background than my own. Between that and ensuring problem variants are all similarly challenging, progress is ongoing.
Jacobsen: What skills and considerations, in an overview, seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Shea: Among the questions that exist in the current alpha version of the test, these were largely derived from existing problems authored by Ron Hoeflin. The sense was that it was not the problems themselves that were fundamentally at fault here, but rather that it took more effort to vet a sufficient problem than it did for someone to go on to leak it.
With that said, deriving a schema that generates problems of similar difficulty is a challenge, and often requires restricting the degrees of freedom for the generator itself. For instance, the Mega and Titan item analysis has shown that the interpenetrating solid questions tend to be among the most challenging, but the degree to which they are challenging varies significantly. Consider the three interpenetrating solid questions on Ron Hoeflin’s Power Test, which are lifted from the Mega and Titan Tests. There is a notable difference in the difficulty of the interpenetrating cube and tetrahedron compared to the interpenetrating three cubes compared to the interpenetrating two cones and one cylinder. It would not be good practice to include a general schema for any configuration of interpenetrating solids. Rather, you would need to classify these by difficulty and generate them separately. But where does this classification come from? Item analysis gets you started, but at a certain point, you also depend on a sufficient number of people to take the test and get a better idea of the difficulty and signal of each variant.
Jacobsen: How do you help with problem schemas, adaptivity, user interfaces, and re-norming? How are the problem schemas developed from the Mega, Titan, and Ultra, tests, e.g., the six sides question from the Ultra Test (problem 45) and grid sequences from the Power Test (problems 32-36)?
Shea: In some ways, it is difficult to discuss particular schemas at length because doing so may reveal the underlying pattern in the process. Many schemas are derived programmatically, while some do not have a proven underlying pattern but are bucketed in the same schema, such as the interpenetrating solid variants discussed prior.
User interfaces are designed according to the requirements of the problem. The most challenging interfaces have been the sixth side problem, which requires drawing on a canvas and scoring the answer in a way that accommodates any orientation of the object, and the three dice problem, whose challenge was less with the user interface per se and more with the backend construction of each variant.
Norming is automatically done after each test has been completed. This also backfills prior test-takers, whose estimates are updated accordingly. In the interest of fairness, there are two metrics presented: the immutable estimate per the norm at the time of the test’s completion and the most recent estimate per the latest norm.
Jacobsen: How are verbal problems capable of presenting appropriately challenging problems with variation in type while sustaining similarity of difficulty? Is this replicable across other problem types, e.g., spatial, numerical/quantitative, matrices, etc.?
Shea: Verbal problems in particular have been quite tricky. In the current form of the test, there are trial questions which are presented to the test-taker but do not impact their estimated curve. These trial questions include some, but not all, of the verbal questions. This is in part because verbal problems that have a clean generalization tend to be quite easy to solve. Unlike problems with a more mathematical or logical approach, verbal problems tend to be self-contained, and if generalizable at a high-range, risk producing variants that are far more esoteric than others. This class of problems continues to present the greatest challenge.
Jacobsen: Potentially, what are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these high-range tests? So, they get artificially low scores.
Shea: In terms of time commitments, at this point, there is no limitation to the length of time that a test may be completed. Historically, it would have been more difficult to enforce, as most high-range tests are made available in their entirety to the public. There are some approaches that are taken to minimize leakage of the questions themselves, such as with Paul Cooijmans requiring test-takers to directly request a copy of the test, though my understanding is that this is done to prevent public discussion of the questions and, in turn, their answers, as opposed to any limitations on time taken to complete the test. Timed tests do allow for a measurement of processing speed to some degree, as well as a standardization of test-taking conditions, but given that these particular tests are already being administered without supervision and in whichever environment the test-taker prefers due to the questions requiring a significant amount of time to answer, timing the test could risk giving an unfair advantage to those who simply have more free time to commit.
As far as thought processes, I do not have enough insight into individual test-takers to make broad generalizations about their personal approaches to these problems. From what I have witnessed myself through discussions with others, there is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a tendency to overthink a question or use complicated reasoning to justify a suspected answer, thereby getting it wrong. Almost every time, the answer is clean; like learning how a magic trick is performed, the question once looked impossible but suddenly seems deceptively simple.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and a tendency in a type of personality?
Shea: Since norms are performed on test completion, the process has little overhead. To accommodate low sample sizes, an initial item curve is provided for questions when known. For example, if a schema is adopted from a prior test such as the Ultra Test, then the item curve for that problem is used as the seed for this test. In some cases, such as novel schemas which do not have a prior item curve from which to draw, the curve starts out flat and is gradually shaped based on the test-taker’s answers to other questions.
With these sorts of tests, the low sample size continues to be a problem, but part of this high barrier to entry may be the historical nature of how these tests were administered, between accessibility and cost to score. By making the test available online and without charge, the hope is that this may motivate others to try it out.
As far as the types of personalities that are drawn to high-range tests, I defer to Grady Towers’ observations in Noesis #141 regarding the types of personalities that exist across different societies and the corresponding tests used for their admission. Perhaps there is something to be said for stressing both verbal and non-verbal aptitude.
Jacobsen: The Adaptive IQ Test website opens with a series of claims:
This is an online IQ test that contains several innovative features. Here are some reasons to take this test.
As you answer more questions, the estimate of your rank in the population becomes more accurate.
You see a graph of your estimated rank, not just a single number.
You are allowed to skip questions and come back to them.
You are automatically asked questions that will help make your estimated rank more accurate.
As more people take the test, the graphs become more accurate.
There are a number of anti-cheating devices being used.
The results of this test may be used for acceptance into various high IQ societies.
Any points of clarification that have been needed on any of these at any time in the past from prospective/actual test-takers or the curious? They can be stated here.
Shea: Some of these points are better characterized as statements of fact about the functionality of the test itself, such as the ability to skip questions. One point to clarify about items 1 and 5 is that the estimate for a completed test may change over time as the test is repeatedly normed. There are plenty of cases across other IQ tests where an individual completes the test and receives an estimate only for subsequent test-takers to receive a lower estimate with the same raw score due to the ceiling being lowered through norms over time, and vice versa. As the adaptive test is normed here, all estimates are updated in unison, preventing this discrepancy between raw scores and percentile estimates across different test-takers. As mentioned earlier, both the estimate at the time of the test’s completion and the most up-to-date estimate are presented for completeness.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Shea: The gold standard for high-range testing has always been Ron Hoeflin’s series of tests. These serve as the foundation for much of the existing questions in the current early version of the Adaptive IQ Test. Beyond him, there are many test constructors who have quite novel test items that could be of inspiration.
There is value in multidimensional tests that select for both high-range spatial and verbal problems. I again cite Grady Towers, who wrote of this back in 1998 over the course of several letters published in Noesis #141, where he reflected on the implications for high IQ societies that admit members on the basis of tests that stress both verbal and spatial skills as opposed to one or the other.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from helping in the making of a test?
Shea: It is important to not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good.” There will always be shortcomings with any approach. Care needs to be taken to minimize these shortcomings and accommodate them to the extent possible.
Perhaps a second learning is that there is a high-range test vacuum of sorts, and that vacuum is being filled with any number of experimental high-range tests. This is not necessarily an issue in itself, as many of these test items are intriguing and derived from historical best practices, including the very test being discussed here. More to the point, ideally, those with a formal background in psychometrics would be more involved. I am happy to help where I can, but I also recognize my own limits in this space.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Daniel.
Shea: Thank you for giving me the chance to highlight this project! I feel the need to stress that it is very much in an alpha state and that development is ongoing, but that progress is being made. Special thanks go to Chris Cole and Dean Inada for the decades of work that they put into this long before I arrived, Werner Couwenbergh for his hard work on the interpenetrating solid variants, those who provided input thus far (John Fahy, Nathan Hays, Rick Rosner, and Glen Wooten, among others), and everyone who has provided feedback. I am but a vessel, helping to bring this to fruition where possible.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Bob Williams & Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Abstract
Bob Williams is a Member of the Triple Nine Society, Mensa International, and the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. He discusses: the massive split between young men and women in higher education, noting the societal shifts and personality differences contributing to this trend; women’s increased focus on academic work, resulting in higher grades and career pursuits; delayed or omitted marriage and childbirth due to birth control technologies; men still dominate STEM fields while women gravitate towards humanities and people-oriented careers; the debate on sex differences in intelligence with reference to Haier and Colom’s work; the “corrected” SAT and WISC tests for eliminating sex differences in g; Richard Lynn’s Bayesian model linking head size to intelligence but disputes the Flynn Effect’s impact on g; Helmuth Nyborg’s job suspension and court battles over his research on sex differences in intelligence; Christopher Brand’s firing and depublishing incident due to his book on general intelligence; the controversial nature of psychology and the replication crisis in intelligence research; the Gaussian distribution of intelligence but questions its validity at extreme ends; the lack of scandalous claims on extrapolated IQs above 4 sigma; high-IQ societies’ role in pre-internet peer interactions and their evolution with the internet; comments on the variable success of high-IQ societies in meeting member needs; expresses skepticism about AI’s magical problem-solving capabilities while acknowledging its potential in data analysis and medical diagnosis; the social impacts of increasing education and career pursuits among women, leading to demographic changes and below replacement birth rates in developed nations.
Keywords: Gender disparities, higher education trends, career aspirations, academic performance, personality traits, marriage trends, childbirth patterns, birth control impact, STEM fields, humanities preferences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you make of this massive split between young men and young women in colleges, polytechnics, and universities now? It is rather drastic by this time, and nowhere near completing its trend.
Bob Williams: It is an interesting development that presumably has multiple causes. One of those is the shift from society sending men to college so that they can obtain a good job with their degree and support a family, while women were expected to rear children and keep the home. As that changed, women clearly wanted to pursue their own careers and were eager to consume higher education. Another factor is the sex differences we see in personalities. These have led to women often getting higher grades than men in various majors. My take is that women are more likely to focus on academic work and to resist distractions. Trait conscientiousness may be higher for women. The related change that goes with this is delayed or omitted marriage and delayed or omitted childbirth. No doubt, birth control technologies also contributed to these changes in choices. We still see more men going into STEM than women, either as a matter of choice, or ability. The opposite happens in humanities. Even among very bright women, the SMPY (Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth) longitudinal study shows that women are much more inclined to choose career paths that involve working with people than with things (STEM). There remains some disagreement between researchers about the intelligence differences between the sexes. In The Science of Human Intelligence, Haier and Colom* mostly argue for no difference, but with obvious differences on a subject-by-subject basis (particularly math and verbal). Although they treated the topic at length, it left me feeling that some things were simply ignored, such as consistently higher male scores on both SAT-M and SAT-V. They argue that this difference is due to differences in the makeup of the test takers, but the differences go on for too long for this to make sense. Data relating to whether there are sex differences in reaction time, inspection time, polygenic scores, and other measurable factors that are low level and directly measured are missing. As I recall, both SAT and WISC tests have been “corrected” to eliminate differential item functioning (by sex). If test items that are more difficult for women than men are removed, the test logically will have difficulty in showing sex differences in g.
*[Haier, R.J., Colom, R. and Hunt, E., 2023. The Science of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.]
Jacobsen: How statistically significantly different were the Army helmet sizes?
Williams: I don’t know. The data apparently showed that there was an increase in head size for the group being considered (US military). It could have shown different results in other nations. Richard Lynn argued that, using a Bayesian model, measures of child development, including head size, showed general increases in measures that may relate to intelligence. He took this as biological evidence of the Flynn Effect (FE), which was mostly or exclusively positive at that time. The problem was that repeated attempts to show a change in g failed. People in nations with strong FE gains did not show real world gains in measures of validity, nor did they become less intelligent when the FE reversed. The actual gains in child development were almost certainly related to improved diets and medical care causing positive health effects, but not real gains in g.
Jacobsen: How did Nyborg suffer up to losing his job?
Williams: I don’t recall having learned about his earlier relationships with his university. Although I met him in 2005, it was not until the following year that I had a long discussion with him. He was telling me about his job suspension at the University of Aarhus. He appealed to ISIR members to make comments to the Rector. Some responded and I assume that helped. That same year the suspension was canceled and he received a “severe reprimand” over the Skanderborg project (sex differences in general intelligence). [The paper that caused the problem was titled “Sex-related Differences in General Intelligence g, Brain Size, and Social Status.”] Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. Each time I saw Nyborg he told me about new problems. I cannot recall how many iterations there were, but the general pattern was that he would be fired, then he would sue the university, then the courts would rule in his
favor and he would be rehired. I believe the last court ruling included a monetary award to him. At that point, he was retired, but I don’t recall if the retirement was forced or not. I think there was at least one forced retirement in the saga. [The second paper that fueled the university animosity was titled “The Decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection.”]
Jacobsen: How did Brand suffer up to losing his job?
Williams: The first I heard of Brand’s troubles was when he published Brand, C. (1996). The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Chichester, England: Wiley. This was a well-written book about general intelligence, which unfortunately was accurate in its discussion of between-group intelligence differences. Due to this, the publishers received complaints that their book was racist, so Wiley actually de-published it. They apparently collected already printed books and destroyed them. [They didn’t get all of the books. One of my friends has a hard-bound copy of the de-published book.] Brand was reportedly working as a waiter to support himself after losing his job. This seems sad to me. I corresponded with him for a while and he published a piece I wrote about heritability on his webpage. Although I never met him I know one person who worked with him. My impression, from his comments, was that Brand contributed to his problems by brashness and other personality traits. He died in 2017.
Jacobsen: How did both lose their jobs?
Williams: Brand was working at the University of Edinburgh and was fired because the university did not want him discussing politically hot topics. Those topics, however, have been investigated by researchers from various nations. There was nothing in his book, or other sources, that I found to be at odds with similar published work. I listed the two papers that the university used against Nyborg. They accused him of scientific misconduct. Again, his work was sound and consistent with similar research elsewhere. I think that the second paper I listed was particularly important because it properly explains phenomena seen in Western nations as a result of massive migration from low-IQ nations.
Jacobsen: How have they managed since their firings?
Williams: This has been mostly answered above. Brand obviously had a very bad time of it, both in losing his already published book and then his job. He tried to sell the book as a digital copy for a while. Later, he posted the entire manuscript for open access.
Nyborg endured a drawn-out battle in court that lasted for years and went through at least the two instances that I mentioned. He seemed to maintain good spirits, based on my updates from him at conferences. He is 87 now. The last time I saw him, he was 81, strong and in good spirits. We were in Edinburgh in 2018.
Jacobsen: Psychology seems prone to making their semi-prominent or prominent people undergo some controversy. Do you remember the Beth Loftus stuff around False Memory? I had coffee/meal with her, I think, 3 times and interviewed her years ago. Another person who went through – relative to academic life – an awful circumstance.
Williams: I recall encountering some references to false memory, but I know little about it. As I recall, the claim was made that individuals could and did create false memories in others (usually patients). I think that this claim was reasonably well-verified, but I might have a false memory of it.
I agree that psychology has had more than its share of controversy. In the specialty I follow, controversy has been heated, as we have previously discussed. Sir Cyril Burt was an example of protracted controversy. Kamin claimed that Burt falsified data relating to twin IQs, used to compute the heritability of intelligence. This sort of case causes a lot of heat and little light. There were two nasty parts to the charge: First, Burt was dead and had no way to defend himself against the claims. Second, the study in question had no lasting impact on the understanding of the heritability of intelligence. I have a bias relating to Kamin, whom I see as a scoundrel (for other reasons). Rushton claimed to have evidence that the data was not altered. Whether it was or was not altered, it was in agreement with a great deal of research that came up with the same answer.
Arguably, things have gotten worse today, at least in the field of intelligence research. But I suppose psychology, in less quantitative niches, can be criticized as sloppy and difficult to replicate. When the replication “crisis” happened, psychology did not fare well, but the more measurement based area of intelligence research held up reasonably well. A first thought would be that this sort of thing would not be found in the hard sciences, but it was.
Nearly 90 per cent of chemists said that they’d had the experience of failing to replicate another researcher’s result; nearly 80 percent of biologists said the same, as did almost 70 percent of physicists, engineers, and medical scientists. Only a slightly lower percentage of scientists said they’d had trouble in replicating their own results.
From: Ritchie, S., 2020. Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Metropolitan Books.
Jacobsen: Is the true distribution of humanity over the billions of people truly a Bell Curve or something different after or meaningless after 4-sigma?
Williams: I think that it is fair to say that for the 8 billion people on our planet, we can only make guesses based on observations of comparatively small groups and general principles that apply. The Central Limit Theorem is the usual support for a Gaussian distribution, for large data sets. Here is a definition I lifted from Investopedia:
“The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size gets larger, regardless of the population’s distribution.”
The whole thing about assuming a Gaussian distribution is reasonable and is seen in countless studies of intelligence distribution. But… These studies simply don’t have data at 4-sigma. Real-world studies are typically based on sample sizes that have (hopefully) adequate statistical power. If you browse through Bias in Mental Testing (Jensen), you will see various distributions from several data sets and different IQ tests. They all resemble a Gaussian distribution, but they don’t extend into the stratosphere.
The claim has been made (including by Jensen) that there are “fat tails” in the real distribution, which I have not seen supported by any well-designed study. As anyone who has read my prior answers knows, I dispute that the definition of intelligence remains fixed at the very high end. I have no idea about the low end, other than that it typically has two incarnations. The non-pathological distribution is the representation of IQ distribution without including people suffering from organic retardation. This is the distribution used to norm a test. The full distribution includes those people who have forms of organic retardation. When they are included, the distribution shows a skew to the low end, for obvious reasons.
The intriguing aspect related to studying this question is that we are moving into the age of DNA and brain imaging methods of measuring intelligence. A relatively few years ago, we could not measure IQ from DNA. Now, it can be done, but with a large error at the individual level. When large genomic data sets are used (as in national collections), the noise in the measurement cancels out, leaving an agreement with traditional IQ test data that is around 92%, using contemporary calculations. If we project a few decades into the future, the limitations we have today will seem primitive. Similarly, it is likely that brain imaging technology will be capable of providing robust measures of intelligence and we might even expect that a ratio scale will eventually be created.
Jacobsen: Were there any scandalous acts around claims of extrapolated IQs above 4 sigma?
Williams: I don’t know of any. In fact, when I became interested in cognitive science (early 90s) one of the things that I noticed was that the literature was overwhelmingly focused on the range of ± 2.5 sigma. Even with studies that were intended to be about high intelligence, most were looking at the top 1%. The Terman longitudinal study is one example. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth longitudinal study eventually got into a range that went to the 1-in-10,000 level of math ability, based on the SAT taken at age 12. One thing I failed to ask David Lubinski (with adequate opportunities) was if they ever compared the SAT data to comprehensive IQ tests (WAIS or Woodcock-Johnson).
It is reasonable to consider that most research is funded by grants of some kind and those are most often aimed at factors seen over the full range of intelligence, such as relationships between IQ and SES, academic success, career choice, and the sorts of social factors that were reported in The Bell Curve.
Jacobsen: What purpose do high-IQ societies serve now?
Williams: Before the internet, these societies enabled bright people to find peers for discussions (and more often, arguments) and occasional group meetings. The journals offered a place to write and share thoughts about things that would possibly be of little interest to the general public. It is my opinion that the need that is present in bright people to interact with peers, is best met by selective universities, very demanding university majors, and employment in research labs, think tanks, and other jobs that require lots of brain power. People who were not able to use one or more of these, probably benefited more from the societies than those who were doing work in cosmology or theoretical mathematics.
The internet suddenly changed our lives by granting fast access to people around the globe. It created numerous social media paths that now allow bright people to quickly find and communicate with peers. This hasn’t made people more genteel, but it has at least provided paths for both personal-level communications and for more lengthy and public missive distributions through blogs.
Those of us who actively participated in the old-style societies still retain some interest in them and still use them for the initially-intended purposes. My guess is that there will be more movement to web-based groups. One aspect of web groups is that they can be quickly assembled and just as quickly dissolved.
Jacobsen: In my analysis, we have had between 100-125, probably, high-IQ societies, about half – off the top – are defunct. The rest range from journals like the Mega Society’s Noesis to journals and meetings such as Mensa International. Obviously, these provide something to members. Have they met the needs of their intended audiences based on the original intent of such societies and organizations, or have they fallen short?
Williams: I think this has varied from group to group, with some enduring for decades and others evaporating. Mensa is a special case, since it has the advantage of a potentially high membership (due to its low entry threshold) and it is organized to hold regional gatherings that mostly work well, and an annual gathering that draws a lot of attendees. These tend to be structured around social activities and various presentations by people with expertise in interesting fields. When I was much younger, I attended these and found that the best ones were well-received. Some of them experienced planning-, budget-, and space-related problems. Mensa also has some sober components, such as projects that help distribute books, activities for bright children, the Mensa Research Journal, and a traveler hosting program.
One of the unfortunate issues that sometimes happens is that battles between members sometimes end up as legal confrontations. Examples of this include the dispute over Mega Society East vs. Mega Society and the series of suits from Clint Williams that caused a lot of problems for TNS.
Jacobsen: Are we putting a sort of magical-mystical problem-solving essence onto the concept of AI? These are new. We do not know the extent of impact, limits and scope, for example. I feel
as if we are inundated by science fiction, where I see a faith in AI as if a panacea to ills. Certain areas, we have seen empirical evidence of powerful computation plus human expertise used to inform the systems making superhuman performance.
Williams: I was surprised when AI suddenly became a big public topic. It had been under development and in use for some applications for a long time, so I was expecting an incremental improvement from time to time, but then we had ChatGPT and other systems available to anyone and able to do at least some “tricks” that were undeniably advanced. Of these, the ability to communicate in human-like form was startling. Then we saw AI images that were photo-realistic and even able to replicate the appearances and voices of well-known public figures. Some of this (deepfakes) has reached the point where it certainly has the potential to cause both social and legal problems.
The part of the uproar that I find to be premature is the fear that AI will become a supernatural alien force of the type we saw in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. This kind of fear is easy to generate and strikes me as presently premature and probably not even a concern for the distant future. When I see our government trying to regulate AI development, I cringe. Imagine the totally uninformed people who already show us that their jobs could be done by AI or maybe an intelligent monkey, trying to prohibit us from developing the things that our global adversaries are not going to abandon. If nothing else, the military aspects (including control of communications) of this are as essential to free nations as are their air, ground, space and sea forces.
To me, the excitement about AI is that we already have evidence of it being able to examine massive amounts of data and to learn how to use it to develop insights that would otherwise be impossible. Consider the example of brain imaging. The problem with this is that each scan can show slightly different content, causing interpretation problems for researchers. But AI can take in details of the scans and use those to reach conclusions that are amazingly accurate, even when the researchers have no idea how the AI did its job. This has obvious implications for medical diagnosis and should make the role of doctors turn into something more like the role of a radiologist who takes images, but stops at that point, letting the AI read and interpret them. Of the hundreds of papers I have heard presented at ISIR conferences, I would think that all of them would benefit from deep analysis with AI. The problem we have with finding single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that are associated with intelligence is the tiny effect size of a single SNP. This has left us with knowing what happens without being able to find even half of the associated SNPs. Right now, we have found 1,271 such SNPs; the experts tell us that the number that defines intelligence lies in the range of 10,000 to 40,000. We have already found the SNPs with average effect sizes of about 0.01%, but the rest presumably have smaller effect sizes. Of course much larger genomic data sets will help, but I believe that the next breakthrough could be by using AI to do its magic.
We hear a lot about AI taking over jobs and some of this may happen, but I believe it will take a good bit of time for corporations to adjust to restructuring their entire operations to operate in concert with AI. Every time I make a phone call to a business, I find that the robotic “push 1 for
this and 2 for that” response irritates me, but then, if I ever reach a living person, they are idiots. I would love to instead talk to a natural language robot who can actually help.
Jacobsen: Women are far more educated than men. Something increasing in effect the younger age one takes into account. A process happening over the last – maybe, 40 years – or something. What does this do to prospects of marriage, family formation, single parenthood, late-age motherhood (e.g., 40+), and so on? I have, for example, as you may have too, seen the push for a change in cultural conversation about parenthood and single parenthood, changing gender roles, and the increase in women having children age 40+ compared to other ages, where we tend to see a decrease in birth rates. There may be an overlay commentary for you, too, where we see in most advanced industrial economies a below replacement rate birth rate across populations, in general. You gave a brief comment on this in Norway, before, and the use of IVF technologies.
Williams: My thought on this topic is that we are at a divergence point where we no longer have time to catch up with the social impacts of our technological progress. My grandmother was 20 years old when the Wright brothers flew for the first time. Her generation was born before electrification. She lived well past the first moon landing. In one lifetime humans experienced air travel (and war), cinema, radio, television, amazing medical advances, early computers, space travel, plastics being used for countless products, the discovery of DNA, and the remaining endless list of life-changing events. But when we look at mankind, it evolved over 200,000 or so years, with time for social and even biological corrections to adapt to the slow increase in knowledge and technology. Now the rate of change is insane. We have not had time to adjust to how people have changed their lives, to the ability to live, not for daily survival efforts, but to a fast-paced world with people flying from nation to nation, to news that reaches us instantly, to laws that were made by earlier generations, and to social norms that have become unstable. We simply don’t have time to adjust. Meanwhile, we have parts of world populations that are still living as hunter-gatherers. The differences between groups expand with evident factors causing increasing friction not only with nearby nations, but with those on any part of the planet.
Among the changes that are consequential are women changing to new roles, many of them more attractive than motherhood, at least to some. This has led to later marriages, omitting marriage, later childbirth, smaller families and more childless couples. The developed nations are seeing below replacement rates of population growth by their native groups, followed by immigration from low-IQ populations into the resulting vacuum. Many commentators have discussed the obvious driver of these changes– modern birth control.
Misconduct Melanie Sakoda is an important figure in cataloguing the crimes of the Easter Orthodox Church
GLOBAL JUSTICE PROJECT
PROJECT COORDINATOR
ALLIANCE OF CHRISTIANS OF CROATIA
Secretary of the Association,
Bojan Jovanović
Melanie Sakoda on Orthodox Clergy-
Related Misconduct
Misconduct Melanie Sakoda is an important figure in cataloguing the crimes of the Easter Orthodox Church.
What is happening in Orthodoxy?
Melanie Sakoda is a Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) Survivor Support Director, SNAP East Bay Leader, and SNAP Orthodox Leader. Here we talk at length on Orthodoxy and clergy-based abuse.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Melanie Sakoda. She is a long-time – some like the term activist, some like someone working for a morally correct cause. You had a lot more time to reflect on the work on this issue. My first question: How did you originally get involved in this work? Because you have been doing this for decades.
Melanie Sakoda: We had an incident in our Church in San Francisco where there was a layman who was a child abuser with multiple convictions. They were allowing him free rein in our parish. Many children got hurt, as far as we can tell. That started it. The reaction when the families came forward was such a backlash. We thought, “Oh my goodness, we are complaining about someone who was only Orthodox for two weeks before his last arrest. What if you were trying to complain about the priest?” So, we decided that we wanted to start a website where people would have some place that they wanted to come, and people could have a sympathetic ear. We started in June of 1999. We took it down in March of 2020.
Jacobsen: For about 21 years, the internet was approximately too big in 1999.
Sakoda: No.
Jacobsen: Or it was smaller than it was in 2020. What was the reaction in 2020 versus 1999? What was the reason for taking it down?
Sakoda: Cappy (Larson), one of her daughters, did the original coding on the original site. Then she stepped down. It was Cappy and me. We are both in our 70s now. We were waiting to see someone stepping forward to take over for us.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Cappy says, “Maybe we should let them miss us.” [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: So, that is what we did. Because there are expenses associated with maintaining a website, we were paying all the expenses ourselves since we needed more financial support. We had a post office box. We had a voicemail. We were paying for our domain main, then our security. Whenever people do not get the warning sign when they visit your site, it is quite pricey for people on fixed incomes. It was funny. It took some people years to notice that we were gone. I have a Facebook page, at least in the Orthodox churches. I have people who write in asking, “What happened to pokrov.org?”
Jacobsen: Now, this is common. I am finding this common through years and years of doing interviews with people who have left religious groups or who are still in, and have concerns, and want to see things become better, more just. It’s a handful of people who do specific parts of activism over an arc of time. You and Cappy are exemplars of that. So, those people also come under various forms of attack or even abuse. So, what kinds have you encountered? Which ones have been more humorous because you must develop a sense of humour in this industry? What ones could have been more humorous?
Sakoda: The most not-humorous one was Cappy’s daughter, Greta, who was still working with us. We were going to attend a conference in Dallas called Orthodox Christian Laity. Originally, Greta was going by herself, and then she received death threats from this one priest whose family was very unhappy that he had been put on our site. I ended up going with her. That was probably the scariest. One of the funniest things… do you remember when that girl went missing in Aruba many years ago?
Jacobsen: A few people may have gone missing, including Aruba.
Sakoda: It was a big case. She was a young, college-aged, blue-eyed blonde girl who went missing. We used to post on Orthodox message boards.
Jacobsen: Natalee Ann Holloway?
Sakoda: Yes. This priest puts on one of these message boards. I may have it in all of my junk. “Cappy, and you should be Aruba’d.” How inappropriate for a person?
Jacobsen: It just sounds like being an ass.
Sakoda: But the funny thing was, as the years went on, the reaction was very, very hostile at first. As the years went by, it became less hostile. People would send us stuff because they knew we would do something with it or try to do something with it.
Jacobsen: You’re in a safe zone.
Sakoda: It was an interesting experience. I do not regret it. I want to win the lottery, build the site, and hire people to work on it. We will see what happens. I do tell people on my Facebook page. I still have access to most of the information. I could get the information if they want information on someone they saw on the site. In addition to my access to the old website, I sadly have way too many hardcopy files because, of course, when I went to law school. Everything was paper. I tended to keep things on paper rather than on my computer. I have computer files.
Jacobsen: I am surprised you didn’t have anything on microfiche.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Yes, I know, microfiche.
Sakoda: I was about to say. It is pretty decent. I do have stuff on paper. When my husband and I downsized in 2018, we had this huge office with all these bookshelves. I do not have this anymore. I have a lot of the files in boxes [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Yes [Laughing].
Sakoda: Recently, someone asked me about this one group. I swear I have something else. I cannot find the hardcopy file.
Jacobsen: Doing a keyword search on a hardcopy file is hard. What aspects of justice have you reached for people who broadened to you? Has there been anything along those lines of help, or has it been a safe space where people can get information safely, and it has been a positive for them?
Sakoda: When we first started, as you mentioned, 1999 was the internet’s early days. Cappy would call people.
Jacobsen: This is from a home line. There are no cell phones.
Sakoda: There might have been cell phones. When did they start?
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Jacobsen: I don’t know either. Oh! The first one came in 1983. So, she might have had a cell phone.
Sakoda: I am sure it was from her landline.
Jacobsen: Like a rotary phone or something.
Sakoda: An abuser was in the parish. He was part of this group that came into Orthodoxy. They were originally a New Age San Francisco cult called The Holy Order of Man. After Jonestown, they didn’t like being on cult lists. So, they started to look for another place to land. A lot of them began joining the Orthodox churches. Through one of Cappy’s other daughters, we found some guy who was from The Holy Order of Man, saying the Orthodox guy they went to was part of this cult group and had been Greek Orthodox. He was upset when they went with this Metropolitan Pangratios Vrionis of the Archdiocese of Vasiloupolis. Because he said, “He is an abuser. He’s been convicted.” We found this little thing on some Orthodox forum on the internet. You need help to look online for this information. All our information was from Pennsylvania and differed from what county or anything. So, Cappy started calling up every county and looking. “Do you have criminal records for this figure?” How hard could it be? Pangratios Vrionis, that’s not a name…
Jacobsen: …very rare, even for the Greeks!
Sakoda: She finally found him. The clerk there at the courthouse was very sympathetic. I shouldn’t tell you this. She not only sent us the records without charging us, but she went – and like me – looked in archives. She had things in boxes. She found a few more pages. She sent them all to us for free. That was one of the first cases we publicized on our website, which was Pangratios Vrionis. After it went public that he had this conviction, he was still operating as a bishop in Queens, New York.
Jacobsen: It is, probably, a big diocese.
Sakoda: Yes. Newer victims came forward.
Jacobsen: Of course.
Sakoda: He was convicted a second time. That was our first venture into it. Originally, we did a lot of that. Cappy is on her phone talking to clerks in various counties nationwide. But as time went on, as I said, people would start sending us stuff. They would say, “So-and-so is convicted; here is a link to the article.” Maybe, as the internet, too, picked up. There are some counties where you can look online for the records, but not as much as I would like. It became easier to find information.
Jacobsen: I want to search this one thing for this question. National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), “One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives… In eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the person who sexually assaulted them.” So, those are the numbers to indicate the extreme forms of sexual violence. Both experience them naturally, though women often experience them from men and men they know. So, if those are the rates in the US, how are the rates in the Church? Are they the same, or are they higher? If they are higher, what is the point of the Church as moral relevance to these people’s lives?
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Sakoda: The trouble is, as I mentioned when we were talking earlier, there aren’t real reliable statistics of abuse in the Orthodox churches. Since 2002, the Catholic Church has published lists of abusers by the diocese. There is the John Jay Report. There is not, to my knowledge, not a single Orthodox jurisdiction in this country that publishes information about their abusers. The closest we came was the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese for a while.
You will see a priest was removed, but you do not know why. Did he decide that he doesn’t want to be a priest anymore? Was he embezzling? Or was he sexually abusing someone in his parish, whether man, woman, or child? They don’t publish that. For a very short while, the Greeks froze or suspended. It might, if someone was defrocked or suspended, have had to do with the settlement in a Greek case. That someone was one of their non-monetary requests. It only lasted a short time. You don’t know. You can track it. Another thing related to the Orthodox cases is that the Catholics have the official Catholic directory. It is published every year. It is a huge book. It lists all the priests in the US and their assignments. The Orthodox do not have that kind of resource to track people. So, if you saw the spotlight movie, you would remember., They are looking for gaps.
People are frequently on ‘leave of absence’ or ‘medical leaves.’ We do not have that resource. I do have many directories. Now, they’re more likely to be online. I just downloaded a copy and put it on my overloaded computer. It is really hard to find information about the Orthodox cases. They’re under the radar. Are you familiar with the calendar issue? Some of the Orthodox churches use a different calendar than the others. What it is, a Pope, Pope Gregory instituted a calendar to start adding leap years because they realized.
Jacobsen: Oh! He stole that from Dionysus Exiguus. I am aware of that one.
Sakoda: Oh, okay, some Orthodox churches will celebrate Christmas on January 7th. They are on what is known as the Julian calendar, but it is a modified Julian calendar because it includes a leap year. So, believe it or not, this is a huge issue in Orthodoxy, particularly in this country. When you have abusers, “I decided the calendar was not where it was at. I decided the new calendar is the reason for all the problems in Orthodoxy.” Abusers were using that as an excuse why they were transitioning from one Church to another.
Jacobsen: A calendar.
Sakoda: Yes. There is this joke. “How many Orthodox does it change to a lightbulb?”
Jacobsen: How many?
Sakoda: “What? Change? No.”
Jacobsen: That’s right. That is why the men don’t shave. When asked why the men grow such long beards, I remember a funny response. He responds, “I would be more curious about the reverse. Why did the men start shaving?” I will give them that one.
Sakoda: It is funny. Some of the ultra-conservativism in Orthodoxy is not new. I remember my grandmother; I cannot remember if it was about wearing a scarf in Church or wearing a pantsuit to Church. My grandmother responded, “Of course, I wear a pantsuit to Church. What do you think this is, the old country?” [Laughing] My grandparents were immigrants, as was my mother. They came from a different world. Some of these things, I don’t know if you have come across the other funny thing. This is called the toll houses. Have you heard about the toll houses?
Jacobsen: No.
Sakoda: They have nothing to do with cookies. It is the theory that when you die. Christ does not judge you. You go through this series of toll houses. Where the Devil judges you, it has become popular in more conservative circles. Father Seraphim Rose was in that theology. The trouble is that it is used. It would be best if you had a spiritual father. You must do what your spiritual father tells you to get through the toll houses. I had one man tell me. “Okay, if your spiritual father tells you to kill someone, would you?” He said, “Yes.”
Jacobsen: Wait. The spiritual father has more authority than the Decalogue.
Sakoda: Yes, than anything, your conscience, the Bible.
Jacobsen: That’s kind of troublesome.
Sakoda: It is very troublesome. Some of these groups were amassing. They had weapons caches.
Jacobsen: Like AK47s and grenades?
Sakoda: Yes.
Jacobsen: What?
Sakoda: Because they are preparing for the end of days.
Jacobsen: Of course, you need ammunition and weaponry for demons. They probably watched Constantine too much or something.
Sakoda: It was a different world to me. What I started to say, I was telling my father’s youngest sister about this. She has been Orthodox her entire life. She says, “I have never heard of toll houses.” [Laughing] Because people are not well-versed in their religion. Someone comes along with this snow-white beard and is presented as an elder.
Jacobsen: Looking like Jehovah in the illustrated Bible or something.
Sakoda: One man told me once he was in Greece someplace. He met this woman. They had a brief fling. The next day, he went to see this elder. The elder told him exactly what he had done the night before. So, that must mean the elder was clairvoyant. I said to him. “Or that the elder sent the woman to you, which is, probably, more likely.” The idea is that the elder tells you to meet this man and have sex with him. You do it. Otherwise, you will not go through the toll houses.
Jacobsen: It is the unquestioned authority. It will be different per community. But that fundamental of unquestioned authority is the fundamental issue.
Sakoda: I was surprised. The money for these monasteries was supposedly coming from the Russian mafia.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: I have much information about those allegations and why they thought they were. The idea, especially now, is with Putin and the invasion of Ukraine. It is Russian money. There are monasteries with guns, supposedly. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of it because I wouldn’t set foot in those monasteries [Laughing]. You must wear a tablecloth on your head if you are a woman.
Jacobsen: The gun in churches thing is, ironically, American.
Sakoda: Yes [Laughing].
Jacobsen: The tablecloth on the head, that’s more – I don’t know – fundamentalist Islam or fringe Christian groups in the United States.
Sakoda: It has become more and more of a thing within Orthodoxy. As you see more and more converts coming into Orthodoxy, they are benignly brought in by these groups. My aunts spent their entire time in the Church. “They don’t know what they’re talking about.” Hats, maybe, and head coverings were optional when I grew up. I must admit. In the 50s, we did wear hats when we went to Church. Not in the sense of having to cover your hair or anything. You see little girls who have to have ankle-length skirts with these big head coverings. To me, there is something wrong with it. As one woman I used to work with, she was a priest’s wife. She had a PhD working in the area of clergy sex abuse. She says, “When you start to think about that, what is that telling people? Children are sexual objects.” She thought it was abusive. In some places, you could get your bathing suits from the Mennonites or whatever [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Probably better than the Mormons; they have full-body underwear that they think can protect you from bullets. If it works, that’s great, but call me skeptical!
Sakoda: All children should have them [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Especially if you go to a Russian Orthodox Church [Laughing] or an American church.
Sakoda: Orthodoxy has changed since I was a child. It has not changed for the better.
Jacobsen: Has the core issue of abuse changed significantly other than the fact that it is coming out more?
Sakoda: I don’t think it has changed. I think it was sad when we first started talking about what had happened at our Church and started talking to priests whom I trusted/admired; they all kept saying, “Abuse is unknown in the Orthodox church.”
Jacobsen: Ha! Yes, I saw some vague commentary by some Orthodox priests about that, where they were more or less saying, “Look, it doesn’t happen at all or as much in our Church. Regardless, we’re not the Catholics, and look at them.” That’s the argument. It is an insidious and disgusting argument if that’s your standard.
Sakoda: I took a paper. The Orthodox Church of America was having its annual or bi-annual conference. I didn’t register. I went. I had my books out. As people entered the conference, I was handing out my subversive literature.
Jacobsen: Excellent, way to go, good job, we appreciate you.
Sakoda: The funny thing was that this was, again, one of those things that made it seem like Cappy was finding the conviction for Pangratios. The colour I chose for my little booklets was the same as the liturgy for the conference [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Nice.
Sakoda: People were grabbing them, thinking they were liturgy books.
Jacobsen: No!
Sakoda: They were opening them.
Jacobsen: Surprise.
Sakoda: Surprise! I don’t remember if I learned how he got it. I got this card from this man talking about his daughter being abused by an Orthodox priest. It was somewhere around the Chicago area. He was telling a lie about that. That, yes, it happens. They don’t talk about it. Or they cover it up. There was a case from the 1800s that was in the papers about an Orthodox priest abusing somebody.
Jacobsen: Can you send me that?
Sakoda: I could if I could find it, Scott [Laughing].
Jacobsen: It is not a small project. This kind of thing. It takes time.
Sakoda: I have a closet full of papers four big boxes. As I said, I have a penchant for keeping things hard, not scanning, and putting them on my computer. But it has been a problem. If you don’t talk about a problem, you can’t solve it. That’s my issue. If you want people to stay in the Church, you must minister to the hurt people—the direct victims and their family members. Many family members leave after this kind of incident, too.
Jacobsen: They either convert out or stop believing.
Sakoda: If the Church is the arc of salvation, then you should have everyone on board. It would help if you didn’t reject the people who have been injured. It is a big shock when they think, “We are the injured party. We got to the Church. We expect to be embraced. ‘I am so sorry. What can we do for you?’” That does not happen. I do not recall a victim saying it. It could be the ones who do, do not contact me. It does not happen. Part of it may be a need for more education. What do you do when someone comes and tells you that? What should the response be?
Jacobsen: Some of the most recent Canadian Armed Forces. In the 2022 data published December 5th, 2023, most Canadian Armed Forces members don’t think it is something they do; it’s a lifestyle with a contract they sign. Over half of Canadian Armed Forces members either deal with it informally – that’s another category, and those who do file a report figure something will be done, or more will be done. So, it would help if you got those stories. So, even the self-selected groups reporting on this are the more hopeful groups; other sets are not reporting it: Dealing with it themselves or among their family. They leave. Some try reconciling it with their faith, God, or religion. I imagine that being a very difficult line to thread.
Sakoda: Yes, because, I think, one of the unfortunate things, usually, when you go to a church or a Christian church, “You need to forgive and forget.”
Jacobsen: That’s toxic.
Sakoda: It’s not how abuse manifests itself in people’s lives. You could be going along thinking, “I’ve put my abuser out of my mind.” Maybe the child turns the age of you when you were abused; then it brings it back up. For survivors, it is more of an up-and-down rollercoaster. What does it mean to forgive in that case? My best definition is that you are not thinking about this, not holding onto all of this anger and angst. You are moving on with your life.
Jacobsen: Right, it has been integrated.
Sakoda: What has happened to you has been done; it will not change.
Jacobsen: That part can’t be changed and is the hardest to accept.
Sakoda: Yes, I have a lot of Orthodox priests that said nasty things to me. One accused me that if you say this to people, it will damage them. I said, “No, if you have a child that is in a car accident and loses a leg, can that child go on and have a happy life? Of course. Will it ever get another leg? No.” Sexual abuse is the same thing. It is a permanent injury. So, what you want is you want it to heal nicely with the scar, not to be a constant abscess.
Jacobsen: What else have they said to you?
Sakoda: Our favourite one, this is another funny one.
Jacobsen: This is the point of doing this work for those reading this. You will only make it long-term if you have a sense of humour.
Sakoda: No, you laugh at things that are not funny, but you laugh at things all the time. What is the alternative – being angry and crying all the time? A priest said Cappy and I were obvious lesbians.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: I called Cappy and asked, “Did you see this? Should we tell our husbands?” [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: I’ve been married for 49 years this year. She’s been married longer. It’s like, “Gee, should we tell Greg and Robert?” Anything or we were angry.
Jacobsen: Yes, many atheists get that when they’re critiquing religious injustice. It is the same as speaking out in the Church.
Sakoda: My favourite response was, “Why aren’t you angry that children are being permanently injured in the name of God?”
Jacobsen: Should you be angry with me?
Sakoda: Yes, shouldn’t you be angry with me? You don’t have to throw rocks or take those machine guns.
Jacobsen: I take anger, but not necessarily in its obvious forms of pitchforks, torches, rocks, and guns. It is the long-term burn of letter writing, campaigning, filing reports, press releases, interviewing, and gathering databases.
Sakoda: If you want to look at it, as I told someone too, Christ took the whips from the moneychangers and drove them out of the temple. There is a precedent for some anger. Then you get a response. “What? Do you think you’re Christ?”
Jacobsen: Isn’t he supposed to be the example for these folks?
Sakoda: It is an example. It shows you there is a time and a place. My uncle, an Orthodox priest, was my father’s youngest brother. This came to me through a convoluted process, which I won’t get into. He once told a woman who was struggling. She went to him for confession. A relative abused her children. She said, “I cannot forgive them for what they did.” My uncle told her, “Christ is going on his ministry and saying, ‘Your sins are forgiven. Your sins are forgiven. Your sins are forgiven.’” She goes, “What did he say on the Cross? ‘Father, forgive me.’” He said, “Don’t try to be better than Christ.” For whatever reason, it released her load. She said that she was doing the best she could and that she didn’t have to forgive them. She should say, “God, it is up to you.” For many survivors, particularly those struggling with remaining a part of the Church or not, that is a very meaningful thought. “I do not have to embrace my abuser.” They can wash their hands of them.
Jacobsen: Our minds only work on remembering salient information. Trauma is very salient to a person to avoid that situation again. That’s why it is trauma and highly remembered. The phrase you said about forgive and forget doesn’t fit our cognitive system, but it works: Forgive and don’t forget is the key.
Sakoda: Don’t forgive, but live a happy life anyway.
Jacobsen: It is up to the person whether they forgive. It is not up to the community, the priest, or anyone else. For some people, forgiving is not the right choice for them.
Sakoda: If you look at it, as I said, for people still trying to be within the religion, if the idea is your sins won’t be forgiven, it is fear. “How do I do this? I will be damned because I cannot forgive.” That’s why I said what my uncle said to this woman. It gave her much comfort because he wasn’t demanding. He didn’t say, “How terrible, you are going to Hell if you don’t forgive your relative for sexually abusing your children.” He said, “Let God sort it out.” You go and live your life. I think that’s not an easy thing to do anyway. It is harder to do if you are still trapped in this idea. “Oh my God, I am damning myself if I can’t do this.”
Jacobsen: After 2020, what are the updates on these kinds of cases for the Orthodox Church? I will be working on an analysis of the materials that Hermina and Katherine gave me. It is a year-by-year chronology of what they have so far, summarizing and breathing new life into those popular or unpopular news reports.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: It covers a little bit. It doesn’t have legal force. It takes people like yourself, Hermina, Katherine, Lucy, and others to make things happen. I am nothing. All the people I am aware of working on this regarding Eastern Orthodox traditions are women who are approximately 40 years old and older.
Sakoda: And up and up! [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Right, so, what is it about women in those communities and being in the latter half of life, statistically speaking, that puts that demographic in a position to speak on these topics over a long period and to put in the hard work that is doing statistical analysis, getting data, getting the stories, and being a resource for people?
Sakoda: Part of it, religion has always been more of a women’s province anyway. When you have a community, for the Orthodox and the Catholics, you do not have women priests. You do not even have women deacons anymore. Although, there is a revival of that going on in the Orthodox churches. So, it is a man-centred thing.
Jacobsen: True.
Sakoda: I think men and women react a little bit differently to trauma. Part of it could be, too. I remember the MeToo Movement, which started or exploded, and there were all these things about women posting MeToo and talking about what they do to protect themselves. There was a man puzzled. He posted, “What do you do to avoid sexual assault?” He goes, “Stay out of prison.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Women are constantly under assault or unwelcome touching. I think it gives them a more sympathetic perspective when someone comes and says, “This happened to me.” Maybe they are more likely to believe it happened to you because it happened to them. I don’t think you could interact with an adult woman who hasn’t been assaulted in some form or another. You’re on the train or bus, and someone grabs your butt. Men don’t experience that as often. Not all men, but maybe that’s a variable.
Jacobsen: I experienced some of it. I was working at a low-grade pub.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: I worked in the back of the house, sometimes in the front. I worked at four restaurants simultaneously and did janitorial for 2 of them overnight, seven days a week. I remember one bartender. She would ask me to reach for something and grab my stomach, ass. That harassment was not requested [Laughing]. I don’t think, from what I am reading and have heard and been told, that’s nearly as pervasive as it has been for many women.
Sakoda: I think it doesn’t help that for many men, particularly if a man assaulted them. The idea is, “Why didn’t you fight him off?” You get a little of that as a woman. As a woman, you will often get, “What were you wearing?”
Jacobsen: Same tone in the question, too. I’m noticing. “Why didn’t you fight him off?” is “What were you wearing?” What did you do to call this upon yourself?
Sakoda: Truthfully, if I am being charitable, people’s self-protectiveness. If it can happen to you, then it can happen to me. Therefore, you must have done something to bring it onto yourself. Otherwise, it can happen to me.
Jacobsen: the question will assume men’s strength and self-defence regarding aggression. For the women, I am getting two points there. On the one hand, what are you wearing? Many women’s power in society has to do with their beauty. That’s what has been assigned. On the other hand, how they relate to one another in terms of telling their stories is relational. It is seeing that story in another person.
Sakoda: The other thing, something that you said. My book club read this book by Deborah Tannen once, You Don’t Understand. She is a linguist. She is saying men and women speak different languages. She puts it to the men, originally hunters, and women, the gatherers. So, the men, you had to have someone in charge. You had to have a hierarchy. You did what you were told. You didn’t talk about it. You said, “You go there. You go there. This is what we are going to do.” Women would be spending all day talking and gathering stuff. So, women talk to create relationships between themselves. Men talk to convey information.
Jacobsen: As a general tendency, when men relate to one another, picture them sitting at a log and speaking parallel, not looking at each other. Women, it is face-to-face.
Sakoda: How about that? [Laughing] I like that. All of us tried to get our husbands to read the book. The worst was my husband because he was puzzled when I told him this theory; he is smart. He went to Yale. He goes, “I don’t understand. We have a relationship. You’re my wife.” It’s not exactly what I am talking about regarding a relationship. Even within SNAP, the women leaders talk to each other. We know what is going on in each other’s lives.
Jacobsen: “How are you doing? Cindy came back from a funeral and is having a really hard time. Kathryn and her kids are doing fine. One has just entered a hard business school, and the other is sick.” [Laughing] This stuff.
Sakoda: It builds relationships instead of having someone in charge calling the shots, and there is a pecking order. Women can be vicious. Don’t get me wrong, particularly teenage girls.
Jacobsen: I agree with Margaret Atwood. I don’t think women are angels or demons.
Sakoda: They have a different way of relating to one another than men. You notice this in your marriage, going to the book club, because you’re not on the same wavelength. Women want to talk about something to happen. Men are like, “What do you want me to do?”
Jacobsen: It conveys data for action instead of narrative-building for relationship sustaining.
Sakoda: Yes, that may make women more sympathetic to survivors coming forward. They are trying to connect to them. I don’t think most women become women without experiencing some sexual assault along the way.
Jacobsen: Can you say that again? It is a very powerful phrase.
Sakoda: I don’t think some women haven’t been sexually assaulted, if they are being honest. They may not think about it. Someone is groping you on the bus and turning around and not knowing who did it. It is just a fact of life. Women do things. My husband was surprised. I was saying that most women when they park their cars. They park under a street light. They carry their keys in their hands to poke someone’s eyes out. When I open the car door at night, if I am by myself, I check in the back seat first.
Jacobsen: That last one might be Hollywood influence.
Sakoda: It is something you read. Women’s magazines talk about all kinds of things. My husband said, “Do you look at the back seat?” I said, “Yes.” It could be in the hood and popped up out. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing]
Sakoda: Or if, sometimes, women are waiting for an elevator and a guy gives you a creepy vibe, you pretend, “I forgot. You go ahead,” because you don’t want a ride with him. One of the books I have read in the past few years is Gavin de Becker. It is called the Gift of Fear. He had a second book too. Women are taught to be more polite. My daughter has his complaint. Men always interrupt women.
Jacobsen: True. I do it!
Sakoda: [Laughing] But they do not even think about it, interrupting. Anyways, women who are supposed to be polite are supposed to accept that. When you are interrupted, you do not say anything. You say, “Quiet down.” That is one of the things. Maybe it is why women are more subject to assault because they are trying to be polite. They ignore. It is waiting for an elevator, getting creeped out, and getting in an elevator with him because you don’t want to think he creeped you out [Laughing]. It is important. Sometimes, in church situations, people ignore this: They might see the priest or teacher hugging a child. It will tingle their spidey sense. But they won’t do anything about it, particularly in church situations. “I have such a dirty mind to think that Father could have anything nefarious in mind when he is hugging this child.” It is like, “No, for whatever reason, we get these feelings. We need to pay attention to them.”
Jacobsen: Are most priest abusers likely, so far, never to have come to justice? Those who have been abused have stayed in positions of authority or been promoted.
Sakoda: Yes. As I said, I do not have as good a frame on the Orthodox because there isn’t as good of a frame. People used to ask me, “What is the rate of abuse in the Orthodox churches?” How would I know? All I know is that if you look at the names on my site, I probably have ten more I can’t put on the site because someone will write to me: Father So-and-So abused me. I keep a file on it in case someone else comes on down the road and comes and claims, “Father So-and-So abused me.” Now, I forgot what you asked [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Most who have abused, have they not come to justice?
Sakoda: I do not have as much information, but I know in the Catholic context. Very few priests have been prosecuted for their crimes. Part of that is the statute of limitations problem. After a sufficient time, the statute of limitations has expired. In the US, the Stogner decision, California tried to do this end run around, saying that they wouldn’t change the definitions of the crimes or the penalties. Still, they would allow criminal cases to be brought forward beyond the statute of limitations. The US Supreme Court said, “No, you cannot do that. It is a violation of constitutional rights. You cannot retroactively change the criminal statute of limitations.” People usually come forward between 50 and 70. It is a joke, not a nice one, that the statute of limitations stands for “Shit Out of Luck.
Jacobsen: How did George Carlin put it? “You’d be SOL and JWF. Shit out of luck and jolly well fucked.”
Sakoda: So, there’s that thing. If you figure out that the churches and the Orthodox Church are doing this, I do not have as much data. They are not reporting them to law enforcement. That is why you don’t have as many prosecutions. I am trying to think. This is one of the first big cases. I think in 1999. In an Orthodox monastery in Texas, two people were reported down there for child sex abuse. Abbott and his righthand man, what’s his name? Father Benedict Green, the other guy was Jeremiah Hitt. Besides the Pangratios conviction we uncovered, they were the first. Hitt went to trial. Benedict pleaded guilty. But you still had all these people who didn’t believe it.
Jacobsen: That is not the controversial part. That’s pretty par for the course. Even the guy who ran the human trafficking, sex trafficking, and sex cult, Keith Raniere, was part of the HBO special or documentary series, The Vow, where he was Vanguard in NXIVM. He got life in prison and several of his accomplices as well, men and women. Still, many people defend him when in prison.
Sakoda: Yes, in this particular case, in 2006, there was a second set of charges. New victims are coming forward multiple victims. I cannot remember if 5 or 6 of them were on charges and were all convicted. Benedict Green killed himself before he could go to trial because I think he knew he would go to prison. After all, this was his second conviction. This was in Texas. You don’t want to go to prison in Texas or Florida. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: No! The weather sucks.
Sakoda: No prison is truly humane, in my view, having visited various prisons in California. They’re particularly bad. In Florida, you can get in a chain gang, too. Do you know what a chain gang is?
Jacobsen: No.
Sakoda: They let the prisons go to highway labour. How old was that Paul Newman movie about that chain gang? There is a staple in the South. You won’t find them in the rest of the country. They might have programs. California has a program where you can be released to go and fight wildfires.
Jacobsen: I honestly don’t know what is worse: firefighting for free or being in prison.
Sakoda: At least you’re out. For many people, it is hard not to be outside.
Jacobsen: It is like the one man you’re saying about MeToo. He would probably be out fighting fires rather than being in prison, afraid of being sexually assaulted.
Sakoda: He was probably 400 or 500 pounds. They shouldn’t have him fighting fires.
Jacobsen: Structurally, it takes work.
Sakoda: Besides, in his first criminal trial, he came to his first criminal trial with an oxygen tank. This is a common tactic for abusers to show up on crutches in a wheelchair.
Jacobsen: It is to garner sympathy.
Sakoda: Yes, it was funny. He had just been to Colorado without oxygen. So, people accepted it. The second set of charges when they came down. In some ways, that was a turning point. That was when we got more credibility. The first charge, people said – my other favourite thing, is that “Father only plead guilty to prevent that victim from having to lie on the witness stand.” When you plead guilty, you must say I did this, did this, under oath. Is it better for him to lie? It is amazing how little people want to believe this happened. Orthodoxy is perfectly willing to believe it happened in the Catholic Church.
Jacobsen: It is a different frame on NIMBY. It happens not in my backyard, but not over here.
Sakoda: They will say the most, “They have those celibate priests.” Orthodox priests can be celibate, too. Some of them are abusers. All Orthodox bishops either have to be widowed. There have been bishops who put their wives in monasteries. They have to be unmarried, too. So, you do have celibate clergy portions in the Orthodox Church. But I think people have the idea that it is a choice. You have to decide if you are celibate or married before you are ordained, and you have a choice. But what happens to a priest whose wife dies? He cannot remarry in Orthodoxy and be a priest. So, it’s part of him being married or being a priest. He has a hard choice to make. But I think the main thing is that people equate celibate priests with abuse. Abuse is not about sex. It is about power and control. It is through the vehicle of sex. It makes it confusing for the victim.
Jacobsen: It goes back to the question about unquestioned power in that particular structure. If they have that transcendental status connecting to something divine, it is much harder to question it, especially if you have grown up or been imbued in it. It is much harder to question it.
Sakoda: A lot of the priests tell convincing lies. This is what God wants you to do. Sometimes, for girls, they’ll say, “God wants me to indoctrinate you to what it means to be a Christian wife,” or something. It is one of those things where you must be in the situation. You have to be the child and realize everything that has happened before or the other tactic. It was Phil Saviano. He did the expose on the Catholic Church. He said, ‘The priest gave me a beer and gave me porn.’
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: ‘The next time, he wanted me to go further. I couldn’t say, ‘No,’ because I was compromised with the beer and the porn.’ That is the way children’s minds work.
Jacobsen: Yes, in some of these stories, the people regress. The way they talk. They cannot just tell this priest to “fuck off,” to put it colloquially.
Sakoda: I had one man come to my meetings. I do not know if he came more than once. I have support meetings for survivors. He said, “I am not sure I should be there,” because he was there when the priest tried to touch him. He punched him and ran away.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: He goes, “I wasn’t abused,” but what happened was his trust in the institution died, whether the priest actually touched him or just tried to touch him, and he got punched. I try to tell people all the time. Even if you get away, many people freeze. Even if you froze or punched him, you would still feel that damage. “Oh my God, he is supposed to be a priest.” Particularly children, what do you do to protect yourself the next time? “It must be something I did. What do I do to change this situation?” You’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person. There’s probably nothing you can do, particularly for little kids. A grown man and a 6-year-old, that’s not even a fair fight.
Jacobsen: 18, 20, 25, they still have a lot of the development of having a feeling and standing in it. It can be much if you push them hard enough. It doesn’t take that much pushing. It takes a long time to get a backbone.
Sakoda: Especially to stand up to someone who you have been told is someone who represents God. I remember one survivor. He was abused as an adult. He was a seminarian. When the priest attacked him, he froze. He was shocked that a priest would be doing this. Afterwards, he had such self-blame and loathing because “Why didn’t I do something?” I think that’s hard. It is not just fight or flight. It is also fighting, fighting, freezing, freezing and complying. People tend to forget about that. That happens. It can set a pattern. That freeze and compliance can haunt you in similar situations for the rest of your life. You may revert to that response instead of doing something different. I think trauma is stored in a different part of the brain. It affects your behaviour in ways that you do not always realize. Someone told me. When their abuser had told them that if they spoke up, they would be killed, and when they spoke up, they were so terrified. The idea that the axe was coming. Even though their abuser was dead, it was terrifying to come forward because of what they had been told.
Jacobsen: The tools of religious indoctrination, from my view, are based on fear. A lot of it is reinforced by fear of death. “I would rather not think about the idea that I would stop existing and, therefore, I will exist eternally in some other transcendent dimension.”
Sakoda: So, “I have to do x, y, and z.” It is like the toll houses. “I have to do everything my spiritual father tells me, or I will be eternally damned.”
Jacobsen: The easiest presentation, I think it goes against… the philosophy on life is you’re a flame. Once you snuff the flame out, it doesn’t go anywhere. It just stops being. I think it is the same for us.
Sakoda: No one knows because no one has returned [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Right, people who believe in Uri Geller, who was shown as a fraud by James Randi on national television on Johnny Carson. Similar fakes and frauds, and so on, I am noticing the same phenomenon that you’re describing with individuals who come forward with the abuse. They have public cases. They have data up to 2020. They have news organizations cataloguing stuff like Hermina and Katherine. People, like the X Files, they want to believe.
Sakoda: They do. Part of it is that you want to go on with something bigger than yourself. That’s okay. What you cannot have is that my father ruined me. He said, “Melanie, you have a head to do more than decorate your shoulders.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: He focused on thinking for himself and didn’t tell people what to do. I think there is that element of social conditioning. Where you are supposed to obey the teachers. You are supposed to obey the priests. It is basically, people don’t say, “What if the priest is a creep?” What do I do them? Sex abuse is pervasive in society. I think it would find it in the Church. I think they could do a lot more to make churches a safer place if people are going to go to them.
Jacobsen: It is probably a hard pill to swallow because it makes churches seem like every other institution, which is to say, human. There’s also the fact that the indoctrination starts so early. I agree with Hypatia. If you imbue someone sufficiently early, it is extremely hard for them to unravel not the moral stuff, the superstitions that are built up around this complex of theology and social life, community, and ritual, and the unquestionable authority of these priests and bishop figures.
Sakoda: Yet, some overcome it. I know the woman who runs Bishop Accountability, Ann Barrett Doyle. She was one of those that was raised Catholic. I remember reading something about her. That was when she was 14. Their priest was saying something. She thought it was ridiculous and stood up. So, as my father said, you have people who believe in using your head or your conscience and speaking up when you see something wrong. Being comfortable and having someone telling you what to do is more tempting. It is not your responsibility.
Jacobsen: That’s scary for some people.
Sakoda: It is scary the other way too.
Jacobsen: Sure.
Sakoda: So, if the elder asks you to kill someone, you say, “Yes, sure thing.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Then you go and do it. But you will go to Heaven because you obeyed your spiritual father. That, to me, is scary. I think it is a perversion of what religion is all about.
Jacobsen: Since you have given me so much of your precious time, m’lady.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: I am going to ask one last question.
Sakoda: Is it a trick question? [Laughing]
Jacobsen: I am hoping not. If you could point people to individuals or resources they can go to for help if they’re coming out of the Orthodox tradition, who should they look into? What organizations can they get some help from? Also, for yourself or others doing this kind of work, here is my experience so far. It is – literally – women doing this work. How can they support them with their time, skills, volunteer efforts, and finances? What are the ways to help as well?
Sakoda: Regarding organizations such as SNAP, we have support groups for survivors. They follow the AA meeting model. Most people find them either as a supplement to therapy or some people use them instead of therapy. It is a way of meeting other survivors or going to a room where you say, “This happened to me when I was 6.” Instead of people turning the other way or saying, “You need to forgive and forget,” or whatever. People will say, “We understand.”
Jacobsen: #ChurchToo.
Sakoda: Yes. There is also, in this country, a group called RAINN, Rape Abuse Incest National Network. They have some of the same services that they offer. However, they do not specialize in religion or religious abuse. SNAP is the only one I know that does it. That has a mission to support survivors of abuse and religious institutions. Maybe this is not quite what you meant by this. I think what people can do to help support. If someone comes and confides in you, when I was 10, my priest raped me, or my pastor raped me or whatever.
Jacobsen: The severity, just hearing it, is a very… If you hear that sentence, pause and hear what they’re saying to you; they’re not lying to you, most likely.
Sakoda: What do they have to gain?
Jacobsen: Seriously.
Sakoda: What do you say? You say, “I am sorry. I am sorry that happened to you. What can I do to support you?” Maybe you cannot do a whole lot. Maybe this is their healing journey. If you accept what they say… I had one Orthodox survivor who was abused. When I started talking to him, it was automatic, “I am so sorry that happened to you.” He started crying. What can I say? I make men cry. He said, “No one has ever told me that before. That they were sorry for what happened to me.” It is like, that’s sad.
Jacobsen: That breaks the spell. I am stealing from a now-deceased philosopher, Daniel Dennett, who wrote a book called Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. What you do when you do that, socially, at least, for me, you break the spell. You break the spell for men by doing so.
Sakoda: Yes, that helps; as to what can help the advocates, if they’re involved with an organization, you can support it. As I said, we never get the support to take status as a non-profit. Maybe it will happen. I am not going to hold my breath. The Catholic Church, you’d think Orthodox people would think about SNAP. “That’s for Catholics.” It was funny. I sent one woman. She had been abused as an older teen. I think she was 19, and it was by an Orthodox priest. I said, “Why not try one meeting? What is it going to hurt?” She said, “Oh my God, they didn’t have a regular meeting.” This one had a play being performed at a community theatre or something. The group went to see and support him. She goes, “Oh my God, he was a man. I was a woman. He was Catholic. I was Orthodox. He was telling my story.”
I think that is what you find in the community. If you find another organization that does that, support them! Because it is to make people come forward earlier and earlier. If we have children coming forward, then they will have criminal convictions. Chances are: If it gets publicized by the police if others know, you will get the convictions and some of these people behind bars rather than behind the pulpit. The more you do that, the more people will be willing to believe it, too. There will still be a few religious zealots who never believe this whole thing about “He had hands laid on him!” There is some change in Catholicism, starting with an O that happens when you are ordained. The best response I ever gave someone, particularly the Orthodox Church, was, “The Church may be mystical. It is not magic. If someone is an abuser before they are ordained, they are going to be an abuser afterwards. It is not going to fix them automatically.”
Melanie Sakoda o nedoličnom ponašanju pravoslavnog svećenstva
Melanie Sakoda važna je osoba u katalogiziranju zločina pravoslavne crkve. Što se događa u pravoslavlju?
Melanie Sakoda je direktorica podrške preživjelima Mreže preživjelih zlostavljanih od strane svećenika (SNAP), voditeljica SNAP-a East Bay i pravoslavna voditeljica SNAP-a. Ovdje dugo govorimo o pravoslavlju i zlostavljanju od strane svećenstva.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Danas smo ovdje s Melanie Sakoda. Ona je dugogodišnja – neki vole izraz aktivistica, neki kao netko tko radi za moralno ispravnu svrhu. Imali ste puno više vremena za osvrt na rad na ovoj temi. Moje prvo pitanje: Kako ste se prvobitno uključili u ovaj posao? Jer vi to radite desetljećima.
Melanie Sakoda: Imali smo incident u našoj crkvi u San Franciscu gdje je bio laik koji je bio zlostavljač djece s višestrukim osudama. Puštali su mu slobodu u našoj župi. Mnogo je djece ozlijeđeno, koliko znamo. To je počelo. Reakcija kada su se obitelji javile bila je takva reakcija. Pomislili smo: “O moj Bože, žalimo se na nekoga tko je bio pravoslavac samo dva tjedna prije posljednjeg uhićenja. Što ako se pokušavate žaliti na svećenika?” Dakle, odlučili smo da želimo pokrenuti web stranicu gdje bi ljudi imali neko mjesto na koje bi željeli doći, a ljudi bi mogli imati naklonost. Počeli smo u lipnju 1999. Skinuli smo ga u ožujku 2020.
Jacobsen: Otprilike 21 godinu internet je 1999. bio otprilike prevelik.
Sakoda: Ne.
Jacobsen: Ili je bio manji nego što je bio 2020. Kakva je bila reakcija 2020. u odnosu na 1999.? Koji je bio razlog skidanja?
Sakoda: Cappy (Larson), jedna od njezinih kćeri, napravila je izvorno kodiranje na izvornom mjestu. Zatim je odstupila. Bili smo Cappy i ja. Sada smo oboje u 70-ima. Čekali smo da vidimo nekoga kako će istupiti da nas preuzme.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Cappy kaže, “Možda bismo trebali dopustiti da im nedostajemo.” [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Dakle, to je ono što smo učinili. Budući da uz održavanje web stranice postoje troškovi, sve smo troškove plaćali sami jer nam je trebala veća financijska potpora. Imali smo poštanski pretinac. Imali smo govornu poštu. Plaćali smo glavnu domenu, a zatim sigurnost. Kad god ljudi ne dobiju znak upozorenja kada posjete vašu stranicu, to je prilično skupo za ljude s fiksnim primanjima. Bilo je smiješno. Nekim su ljudima trebale godine da primjete da nas nema. Imam Facebook stranicu, barem u pravoslavnim crkvama. Imam ljude koji pišu s pitanjem: “Što se dogodilo s pokrov.org?”
Jacobsen: Ovo je uobičajeno. Smatram da je to uobičajeno kroz godine i godine obavljanja intervjua s ljudima koji su napustili vjerske grupe ili koji su još uvijek u njima, a imaju zabrinutosti i žele vidjeti da stvari postaju bolje, pravednije. Šačica je ljudi koji se bave određenim dijelovima aktivizma tijekom određenog vremena. Ti i Cappy ste primjeri toga. Dakle, i ti ljudi su izloženi raznim oblicima napada ili čak zlostavljanja. Dakle, s kojim vrstama ste se susreli? Koji su bili duhovitiji jer morate razviti smisao za humor u ovoj industriji? Koje su mogle biti duhovitije?
Sakoda: Najneduhovitiji je bila Cappyjeva kći, Greta, koja je još radila s nama. Namjeravali smo prisustvovati konferenciji u Dallasu pod nazivom Ortodoksni laici. Prvotno je Greta išla sama, a onda je primila prijetnje smrću od jednog svećenika čija je obitelj bila jako nezadovoljna što je on stavljen na našu stranicu. Na kraju sam otišao s njom. To je vjerojatno bilo najstrašnije. Jedna od najsmješnijih stvari… sjećate li se kada je ta djevojka nestala u Arubi prije mnogo godina?
Jacobsen: Nekoliko ljudi je možda nestalo, uključujući Arubu.
Šakoda: Bio je to veliki slučaj. Bila je mlada, studentica, plavooka plavokosa djevojka koja je nestala. Nekada smo objavljivali na pravoslavnim oglasnim pločama.
Jacobsen: Natalee Ann Holloway?
Sakoda: Da. Ovaj svećenik stavlja na jednu od ovih oglasnih ploča. Možda ga imam u svom smeću. “Cappy, i ti bi trebao biti Aruba’d.” Koliko neprikladno za osobu?
Jacobsen: Zvuči kao da si magarac.
Sakoda: Ali što je smiješno, kako su godine prolazile, reakcija je isprva bila vrlo, vrlo neprijateljska. Kako su godine prolazile, postajalo je sve manje neprijateljski. Ljudi bi nam slali stvari jer su znali da ćemo nešto učiniti s tim ili pokušati učiniti nešto s tim.
Jacobsen: Vi ste u sigurnoj zoni.
Sakoda: Bilo je to zanimljivo iskustvo. ne kajem se. Želim dobiti na lutriji, izgraditi stranicu i zaposliti ljude da rade na njoj. Vidjet ćemo što će se dogoditi. Govorim ljudima na svojoj Facebook stranici. Još uvijek imam pristup većini informacija. Mogao bih dobiti informacije ako žele informacije o nekome koga su vidjeli na stranici. Uz moj pristup staroj web stranici, nažalost imam previše tiskanih datoteka jer, naravno, kad sam išao na pravni fakultet. Sve je bilo papirnato. Imao sam tendenciju držati stvari na papiru, a ne na računalu. Imam računalne datoteke.
Jacobsen: Iznenađen sam što niste imali ništa na mikrofišu.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Da, znam, mikrofiš.
Sakoda: Baš sam htio reći. Prilično je pristojno. Imam stvari na papiru. Kad smo suprug i ja smanjili broj zaposlenih 2018., imali smo ogroman ured sa svim tim policama za knjige. Ovo više nemam. Imam puno datoteka u kutijama [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Da [smije se].
Sakoda: Nedavno me netko pitao za ovu jednu grupu. Kunem se da imam još nešto. Ne mogu pronaći tiskanu datoteku.
Jacobsen: Pretraživanje po ključnim riječima na tiskanoj datoteci je teško. Koje aspekte pravde ste dosegli za ljude koji su vam se proširili? Je li bilo ičega na tom planu pomoći ili je to bio siguran prostor gdje ljudi mogu sigurno dobiti informacije i to je bilo pozitivno za njih?
Sakoda: Kad smo počeli, kao što ste spomenuli, 1999. bili su rani dani interneta. Cappy bi zvao ljude.
Jacobsen: Ovo je s domaće linije. Nema mobitela.
Sakoda: Mogli su biti mobiteli. Kada su počeli?
Ne sviđaju vam se oglasi? Postanite podržavatelj i uživajte u The Good Men Projectu bez oglasa
Jacobsen: Ne znam ni ja. Oh! Prvi je došao 1983. Dakle, možda je imala mobitel.
Sakoda: Sigurna sam da je bilo s njenog fiksnog telefona.
Jacobsen: Kao rotirajući telefon ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: U župi je bio jedan zlostavljač. On je bio dio ove grupe koja je došla u pravoslavlje. Izvorno su bili New Age kult iz San Francisca pod nazivom The Holy Order of Man. Nakon Jonestowna, nisu voljeli biti na kultnim listama. Pa su počeli tražiti drugo mjesto za slijetanje. Mnogi od njih počeli su pristupati pravoslavnim crkvama. Preko jedne od drugih Cappyjevih kćeri, pronašli smo nekog tipa koji je bio iz Svetog Reda Čovjeka, koji je rekao da je pravoslavac kod kojeg su išli bio dio ove kultne skupine i da je bio grčki pravoslavac. Bio je uznemiren kad su otišli s tim mitropolitom Pangratiosom Vrionisom iz nadbiskupije Vasiloupolisa. Zato što je rekao: “On je zlostavljač. On je osuđen.” Našli smo ovu sitnicu na nekom pravoslavnom forumu na internetu. Potrebna vam je pomoć da potražite ove informacije na internetu. Sve naše informacije bile su iz Pennsylvanije i razlikovale su se od okruga ili bilo čega. Dakle, Cappy je počeo zvati svaki okrug i tražiti. “Imate li kazneni dosje za ovu cifru?” Koliko teško može biti? Pangratios Vrionis, to nije ime…
Jacobsen: …vrlo rijetko, čak i za Grke!
Sakoda: Napokon ga je našla. Službenik u zgradi suda bio je vrlo suosjećajan. Ne bih ti ovo trebao reći. Ne samo da nam je poslala zapise bez da nam je naplatila, nego je otišla – i poput mene – pogledala u arhive. Imala je stvari u kutijama. Pronašla je još nekoliko stranica. Sve nam ih je poslala besplatno. To je bio jedan od prvih slučajeva koje smo objavili na našoj web stranici, a to je bio Pangratios Vrionis. Nakon što je izašlo u javnost da je imao takvo uvjerenje, još uvijek je djelovao kao biskup u Queensu, New York.
Jacobsen: To je, vjerojatno, velika biskupija.
Sakoda: Da. Javile su se novije žrtve.
Jacobsen: Naravno.
Šakoda: Drugi put je osuđen. To je bio naš prvi pothvat u tome. Izvorno smo radili puno toga. Cappy telefonira i razgovara sa službenicima u raznim županijama diljem zemlje. Ali kako je vrijeme prolazilo, kao što sam rekao, ljudi bi nam počeli slati stvari. Rekli bi: “Taj i taj je osuđen; ovdje je poveznica na članak.” Možda, jer je to pokupio i internet. Postoje neke županije u kojima možete potražiti evidenciju na internetu, ali ne onoliko koliko bih ja želio. Postalo je lakše pronaći informacije.
Jacobsen: Želim pretražiti ovu jednu stvar za ovo pitanje. Nacionalni centar za informacije o seksualnom nasilju (NSVRC), “ Jedna od pet žena i jedan od 71 muškarca bit će silovani u nekom trenutku svog života… U osam od 10 slučajeva silovanja, žrtva je poznavala osobu koja ju je seksualno napastovala. ” Dakle, to su brojke koje označavaju ekstremne oblike seksualnog nasilja. Obje ih doživljavaju prirodno, iako ih žene često doživljavaju od muškaraca i muškaraca koje poznaju. Dakle, ako su to stope u SAD-u, kakve su stope u Crkvi? Jesu li isti ili su viši? Ako su viši, koja je svrha Crkve kao moralne važnosti za živote tih ljudi?
Ne sviđaju vam se oglasi? Postanite podržavatelj i uživajte u The Good Men Projectu bez oglasa
Sakoda: Problem je u tome što, kao što sam spomenuo kad smo ranije razgovarali, nema prave pouzdane statistike zlostavljanja u pravoslavnim crkvama. Od 2002. Katolička crkva objavljuje popise zlostavljača po biskupiji. Postoji izvješće Johna Jaya. Ne postoji, koliko mi je poznato, niti jedna pravoslavna jurisdikcija u ovoj zemlji koja objavljuje podatke o svojim zlostavljačima. Najbliže što smo došli bila je Grčka pravoslavna nadbiskupija jedno vrijeme.
Vidjet ćete da je svećenik uklonjen, ali ne znate zašto. Je li odlučio da više ne želi biti svećenik? Je li pronevjeravao? Ili je seksualno zlostavljao nekoga u svojoj župi, bilo muškarca, ženu ili dijete? Oni to ne objavljuju. Na vrlo kratko vrijeme , Grci su se zamrznuli ili suspendirali. Ako je netko razriješen dužnosti ili suspendiran, to bi moglo imati veze s nagodbom u grčkom slučaju. Taj netko bio je jedan od njihovih nenovčanih zahtjeva. Trajalo je samo kratko vrijeme. ti ne znaš Možete ga pratiti. Još jedna stvar vezana za pravoslavne predmete je da katolici imaju službeni katolički imenik. Izlazi svake godine. To je golema knjiga. Navodi sve svećenike u SAD-u i njihove zadatke. Pravoslavci nemaju tu vrstu resursa za praćenje ljudi. Dakle, da ste vidjeli film u središtu pozornosti, sjetili biste se., Oni traže praznine.
Ljudi su često na ‘odsustvu’ ili ‘liječenju’. Mi taj resurs nemamo. Imam mnogo imenika. Sada je vjerojatnije da su na mreži. Upravo sam preuzeo kopiju i stavio je na svoje preopterećeno računalo. Doista je teško pronaći podatke o pravoslavnim slučajevima. Oni su ispod radara. Jeste li upoznati s pitanjem kalendara? Neke od pravoslavnih crkava koriste drugačiji kalendar od drugih. Što je to, Papa, Papa Grgur uveo je kalendar kako bi počeo dodavati prijestupne godine jer su shvatili.
Jacobsen: Oh! Ukrao je to od Dioniza Exiguusa. Svjestan sam toga.
Sakoda: Dobro, neke pravoslavne crkve će slaviti Božić 7. siječnja. Nalaze se na onome što je poznato kao Julijanski kalendar, ali to je modificirani Julijanski kalendar jer uključuje prijestupnu godinu. Dakle, vjerovali ili ne, ovo je veliki problem u pravoslavlju, posebno u ovoj zemlji. Kad imate zlostavljače, “Odlučio sam da kalendar nije tamo gdje jest. Zaključio sam da je novi kalendar razlog svih problema u pravoslavlju. Zlostavljači su to koristili kao ispriku zašto su prelazili iz jedne Crkve u drugu.
Jacobsen: Kalendar.
Sakoda: Da. Postoji taj vic. “Koliko se pravoslavaca mijenja na žarulju?”
Jacobsen: Koliko?
Sakoda: “Što? Promijeniti? Ne.”
Jacobsen: Tako je. Zato se muškarci ne briju. Na pitanje zašto muškarci puštaju tako duge brade, sjećam se smiješnog odgovora. On odgovara: “Više bi me zanimalo obrnuto. Zašto su se muškarci počeli brijati?” Ja ću im dati taj.
Sakoda: Smiješno je. Neki od ultrakonzervativizma u pravoslavlju nisu novi. Sjećam se svoje bake; Ne mogu se sjetiti je li se radilo o nošenju šala u crkvi ili o nošenju odijela s hlačama u crkvu. Moja baka je odgovorila: “Naravno, u crkvi nosim odijelo s hlačama. Što misliš, što je ovo, stari kraj?” [Smijeh] Moji djed i baka bili su imigranti, kao i moja majka. Došli su iz drugog svijeta. Neke od ovih stvari, ne znam jeste li naišli na druge smiješne stvari. To se zove naplatna kuća. Jeste li čuli za naplatne kuće?
Jacobsen: Ne.
Sakoda: Nemaju veze s kolačićima. Teorija je da kad umreš. Krist vam ne sudi. Prolazite kroz ovaj niz naplatnih kuća. Gdje vam đavo sudi, postalo je popularno u konzervativnijim krugovima. Otac Serafim Rose bio je u toj teologiji. Problem je što se koristi. Najbolje bi bilo da imaš duhovnog oca. Morate učiniti ono što vam vaš duhovni otac kaže da biste prošli kroz naplatne kuće. Imao sam jednog čovjeka koji mi je rekao. “U redu, ako ti tvoj duhovnik kaže da ubiješ nekoga, bi li?” Rekao je: “Da.”
Jacobsen: Čekaj. Duhovnik ima veći autoritet od Dekaloga.
Sakoda: Da, osim svega, tvoja savjest, Biblija.
Jacobsen: To je pomalo problematično.
Sakoda: Vrlo je problematično. Neke od tih grupa su se gomilale. Imali su skladišta oružja.
Jacobsen: Kao AK47 i granate?
Sakoda: Da.
Jacobsen: Što?
Sakoda: Zato što se spremaju na kraj dana.
Jacobsen: Naravno, trebate municiju i oružje za demone. Vjerojatno su previše gledali Constantinea ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: Za mene je to bio drugi svijet. Ono što sam počeo reći, pričao sam o tome očevoj najmlađoj sestri. Cijeli život je pravoslavna. Ona kaže: “Nikad nisam čula za naplatne kuće.” [Smijeh] Jer ljudi nisu dobro upućeni u svoju religiju. Netko dolazi s ovom snježnobijelom bradom i predstavlja se kao starješina.
Jacobsen: Izgleda kao Jehova u ilustriranoj Bibliji ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: Jedan čovjek mi je jednom rekao da je bio negdje u Grčkoj. Upoznao je ovu ženu. Imali su kratku vezu. Sljedećeg dana, otišao je do ovog starješine. Starješina mu je točno ispričao što je učinio prethodne noći. Dakle, to mora značiti da je stariji bio vidovit. rekao sam mu. “Ili da je starješina poslao ženu k vama, što je vjerojatno vjerojatnije.” Ideja je da vam starješina kaže da upoznate tog čovjeka i spavate s njim. Ti to učini. Inače nećete proći kroz naplatne kućice.
Jacobsen: To je neupitni autoritet. Bit će drugačije po zajednici. Ali taj temelj neupitnog autoriteta je temeljni problem.
Sakoda: Bio sam iznenađen. Novac za te samostane navodno je dolazio od ruske mafije.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Šakoda: Imam mnogo informacija o tim optužbama i zašto su oni mislili da jesu. Ideja je, pogotovo sada, s Putinom i invazijom na Ukrajinu. To je ruski novac. Navodno postoje samostani s oružjem. Nemam nikakva saznanja iz prve ruke o tome jer ne bih nogom kročio u te samostane (smijeh). Morate nositi stolnjak na glavi ako ste žena.
Jacobsen: Stvar s oružjem u crkvama je, ironično, američka.
Sakoda: Da [smije se].
Jacobsen: Stolnjak na glavi, to je više – ne znam – fundamentalistički islam ili rubne kršćanske skupine u Sjedinjenim Državama.
Sakoda: To postaje sve više i više unutar pravoslavlja. Kao što vidite sve više i više obraćenika koji pristupaju pravoslavlju, oni su benigno dovedeni od strane ovih grupa. Moje su tete cijelo vrijeme provodile u Crkvi. “Ne znaju o čemu govore.” Šeširi, možda, i pokrivala za glavu nisu bili obavezni kad sam odrastao. Moram priznati. U 50-ima smo nosili šešire kad smo išli u crkvu. Ne u smislu da morate pokriti kosu ili nešto slično. Vidite djevojčice koje moraju imati suknje do gležnja s ovim velikim pokrivalima za glavu. Po meni, tu nešto nije u redu. Kao jedna žena s kojom sam radio, bila je svećenikova žena. Doktorirala je radeći na području seksualnog zlostavljanja svećenika. Ona kaže: “Kad počnete razmišljati o tome, što to govori ljudima? Djeca su seksualni objekti.” Mislila je da je to uvredljivo. Na nekim mjestima kupaće kostime možete nabaviti od menonita ili bilo čega drugog [smijeh].
Jacobsen: Vjerojatno bolji od Mormona; imaju donje rublje koje pokriva cijelo tijelo za koje misle da te može zaštititi od metaka. Ako radi, to je sjajno, ali nazovite me skeptičnim!
Sakoda: Sva bi ih djeca trebala imati (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Pogotovo ako idete u rusku pravoslavnu crkvu [smijeh] ili američku crkvu.
Sakoda: Pravoslavlje se promijenilo od mog djetinjstva. Nije se promijenilo na bolje.
Jacobsen: Je li se ključno pitanje zlostavljanja značajno promijenilo osim činjenice da izlazi sve više na vidjelo?
Šakoda: Mislim da se nije promijenilo. Mislim da je bilo tužno kad smo prvi put počeli razgovarati o tome što se dogodilo u našoj Crkvi i počeli razgovarati sa svećenicima kojima sam vjerovao/divio se; svi su govorili: “Zlostavljanje je nepoznato u pravoslavnoj crkvi.”
Jacobsen: Ha! Da, vidio sam neke nejasne komentare nekih pravoslavnih svećenika o tome, gdje su više-manje govorili: “Gledajte, to se uopće ili ne događa u našoj Crkvi. Bez obzira na to, mi nismo katolici, a pogledajte ih.” To je argument. To je podmukao i odvratan argument ako je to vaš standard.
Šakoda: Uzeo sam papir. Pravoslavna crkva Amerike je imala svoju godišnju ili dvogodišnju konferenciju. Nisam se registrirao. otišao sam. Izdao sam svoje knjige. Dok su ljudi ulazili na konferenciju, dijelio sam svoju subverzivnu literaturu.
Jacobsen: Izvrsno, tako treba, dobar posao, cijenimo vas.
Sakoda: Smiješno je to što je ovo, opet, bila jedna od onih stvari zbog kojih se činilo da Cappy traži osudu za Pangratiosa. Boja koju sam odabrao za svoje male knjižice bila je ista kao i liturgija za konferenciju [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Lijepo.
Sakoda: Ljudi su ih grabili, misleći da su liturgijske knjige.
Jacobsen: Ne!
Šakoda: Otvarali su ih.
Jacobsen: Iznenađenje.
Sakoda: Iznenađenje! Ne sjećam se jesam li saznao kako ga je dobio. Dobio sam ovu čestitku od ovog čovjeka koji govori o tome da mu je kćer zlostavljao pravoslavni svećenik. Bilo je to negdje u okolici Chicaga. O tome je govorio neistinu. To, da, događa se. Ne govore o tome. Ili to prikrivaju. Bio je slučaj iz 1800-ih koji je bio u novinama o pravoslavnom svećeniku koji je nekoga zlostavljao.
Jacobsen: Možete li mi to poslati?
Sakoda: Mogao bih kad bih mogao pronaći, Scott (smijeh).
Jacobsen: To nije mali projekt. Ovakve stvari. Treba vremena.
Šakoda: Imam ormar pun papira četiri velike kutije. Kao što sam rekao, imam sklonost čuvanju stvari, ne skeniranju i stavljanju na svoje računalo. Ali to je bio problem. Ako ne govorite o problemu, ne možete ga riješiti. To je moj problem. Ako želite da ljudi ostanu u Crkvi, morate služiti povrijeđenima – izravnim žrtvama i članovima njihovih obitelji. Mnogi članovi obitelji odlaze i nakon ovakvog incidenta.
Jacobsen: Ili se obrate ili prestanu vjerovati.
Sakoda: Ako je Crkva luk spasenja, onda biste trebali uključiti sve. Pomoglo bi kad ne biste odbili ljude koji su bili ozlijeđeni. Veliki je šok kad pomisle: “Mi smo oštećena strana. Stigli smo do Crkve. Očekujemo da ćemo biti zagrljeni. ‘Jako mi je žao. Što možemo učiniti za vas?’” To se ne događa. Ne sjećam se da je žrtva to rekla. Mogli bi biti oni koji to rade, nemojte me kontaktirati. To se ne događa. Dio toga može biti potreba za dodatnim obrazovanjem. Što radite kada netko dođe i to vam kaže? Kakav bi trebao biti odgovor?
Jacobsen: Neke od najnovijih kanadskih oružanih snaga. U podacima za 2022. objavljenim 5. prosinca 2023. većina pripadnika Kanadskih oružanih snaga ne misli da je to nešto što oni rade; to je stil života s ugovorom koji potpisuju. Više od polovice pripadnika kanadskih oružanih snaga time se bavi ili neformalno – to je druga kategorija, a oni koji podnesu izvješće smatraju da će se nešto učiniti ili da će se učiniti više. Dakle, pomoglo bi da imate te priče. Dakle, čak i samoizabrane skupine koje izvještavaju o tome su skupine koje se više nadaju; drugi skupovi to ne prijavljuju: Nose se time sami ili među svojom obitelji. Oni odlaze. Neki to pokušavaju pomiriti sa svojom vjerom, Bogom ili religijom. Pretpostavljam da je to vrlo teško provući liniju.
Sakoda: Da, jer, mislim, jedna od nesretnih stvari, obično, kada idete u crkvu ili kršćansku crkvu, “trebate oprostiti i zaboraviti.”
Jacobsen: To je otrovno.
Sakoda: Nije to kako se zlostavljanje manifestira u životima ljudi. Mogli biste razmišljati: “Izbacio sam iz glave svog zlostavljača.” Možda dijete napuni vaše godine kada ste bili zlostavljani; onda ga vraća natrag. Za preživjele, to je više tobogan gore-dolje. Što u tom slučaju znači oprostiti? Moja najbolja definicija je da ne razmišljate o ovome, da ne zadržavate sav ovaj bijes i tjeskobu. Nastavljate sa svojim životom.
Jacobsen: Točno, integrirano je.
Sakoda: Što ti je bilo, to je bilo; neće se promijeniti.
Jacobsen: Taj dio se ne može promijeniti i najteže ga je prihvatiti.
Sakoda: Da, imam puno pravoslavnih svećenika koji su mi govorili ružne stvari. Jedan me optužio da ako to kažeš ljudima, to će ih oštetiti. Rekao sam: “Ne, ako imate dijete koje doživi prometnu nesreću i izgubi nogu, može li to dijete nastaviti i imati sretan život? Naravno. Hoće li ikada dobiti drugu nogu? Ne.” Seksualno zlostavljanje je ista stvar. To je trajna ozljeda. Dakle, ono što želite je da lijepo zacijeli s ožiljkom, a ne da bude stalni apsces.
Jacobsen: Što su vam još rekli?
Sakoda: Naš omiljeni, ovo je još jedan smiješan.
Jacobsen: Ovo je smisao rada za one koji ovo čitaju. Dugoročno ćete uspjeti samo ako imate smisla za humor.
Sakoda: Ne, smiješ se stvarima koje nisu smiješne, ali se stalno smiješ stvarima. Što je alternativa – stalno biti ljut i plakati? Svećenik je rekao da smo Cappy i ja očite lezbijke.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Nazvao sam Cappyja i pitao: “Jesi li vidio ovo? Trebamo li reći našim muževima?” [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Šakoda: Ove godine sam u braku 49 godina. Duže je u braku. To je kao, “Bože, trebamo li reći Gregu i Robertu?” Bilo što ili smo bili ljuti.
Jacobsen: Da, mnogi ateisti to shvaćaju kada kritiziraju vjersku nepravdu. To je isto kao i govoriti u Crkvi.
Sakoda: Moj omiljeni odgovor je bio: “Zašto se ne ljutiš što su djeca trajno ozlijeđena u ime Boga?”
Jacobsen: Trebate li se ljutiti na mene?
Sakoda: Da, zar se ne treba ljutiti na mene? Ne morate bacati kamenje ili uzeti te mitraljeze.
Jacobsen: Prihvaćam ljutnju, ali ne nužno u njenim očiglednim oblicima vila, baklji, kamenja i pušaka. To je dugotrajno sagorijevanje pisanja pisama, kampanja, podnošenja izvješća, priopćenja za javnost, intervjuiranja i prikupljanja baza podataka.
Sakoda: Ako hoćeš da pogledaš, kako sam i ja nekome rekao, Krist je mjenjačima uzeo bičeve i istjerao ih iz hrama. Postoji presedan za nešto ljutnje. Zatim dobijete odgovor. “Što? Misliš li da si Krist?”
Jacobsen: Ne bi li on trebao biti primjer ovim ljudima?
Sakoda: To je primjer. Pokazuje vam da postoji vrijeme i mjesto. Moj stric, pravoslavni svećenik, bio je najmlađi brat mog oca. Ovo mi je došlo kroz zamršen proces u koji neću ulaziti. Jednom je rekao ženi koja se borila. Otišla je kod njega na ispovijed. Rođakinja je zlostavljala njezinu djecu. Rekla je: “Ne mogu im oprostiti ono što su učinili.” Moj ujak joj je rekao: “Krist nastavlja svoju službu i govori: ‘Grijesi su ti oprošteni. Tvoji grijesi su oprošteni. Tvoji su grijesi oprošteni.” Ona kaže, “Što je rekao na križu? ‘Oče, oprosti mi’” Rekao je, “Nemoj pokušavati biti bolji od Krista.” Iz bilo kojeg razloga, oslobodio je njezin teret. Rekla je da radi najbolje što može i da im ne mora oprostiti. Trebala bi reći: “Bože, to ovisi o tebi.” Za mnoge preživjele, osobito one koji se bore hoće li ostati dijelom Crkve ili ne, to je vrlo značajna misao. “Ne moram grliti svog zlostavljača.” Mogu oprati ruke od njih.
Jacobsen: Naši umovi rade samo na pamćenju važnih informacija. Trauma je vrlo bitna da osoba izbjegne tu situaciju ponovno. Zato je trauma i jako se pamti. Fraza koju ste rekli o oprostiti i zaboraviti ne odgovara našem kognitivnom sustavu, ali djeluje: Oprosti i ne zaboravi je ključ.
Sakoda: Nemoj oprostiti, ali svejedno živi sretan život.
Jacobsen: Na osobi je hoće li oprostiti. Nije do zajednice, svećenika ili bilo koga drugoga. Za neke ljude opraštanje nije pravi izbor.
Sakoda: Ako pogledate, kao što sam rekao, za ljude koji još uvijek pokušavaju biti unutar religije, ako je ideja da vam grijesi neće biti oprošteni, to je strah. “Kako da to učinim? Neka sam proklet jer ne mogu oprostiti.” Zato sam rekao ono što je moj ujak rekao ovoj ženi. To joj je pružalo veliku utjehu jer nije bio zahtjevan. Nije rekao: “Kako strašno, ideš u pakao ako svom rođaku ne oprostiš što je seksualno zlostavljao tvoju djecu.” Rekao je: “Neka Bog to sredi.” Idi i živi svoj život. Mislim da to ionako nije lako učiniti. Teže je učiniti ako ste još uvijek zarobljeni u ovoj ideji. “O moj Bože, proklet sam sam sebe ako ovo ne mogu.”
Jacobsen: Nakon 2020., kakve su novosti o ovakvim slučajevima za Pravoslavnu Crkvu? Radit ću na analizi materijala koje su mi dale Hermina i Katherine. To je kronologija iz godine u godinu onoga što su do sada napravili, sažimajući i udahnjujući novi život tim popularnim ili nepopularnim izvješćima.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Pokriva malo. Nema pravnu snagu. Potrebni su ljudi poput tebe, Hermine, Katherine, Lucy i drugih da bi se stvari dogodile. Ja sam ništa. Svi ljudi za koje znam da rade na ovome u vezi s pravoslavnom tradicijom su žene koje imaju otprilike 40 godina i više.
Sakoda: I gore i gore! [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Točno, dakle, što je to sa ženama u tim zajednicama i time što su u drugoj polovici života, statistički gledano, što stavlja tu demografiju u poziciju da govori o tim temama tijekom dugog razdoblja i da uloži naporan rad da radi statističke analize, dobiva podatke, dobiva priče i predstavlja resurs za ljude?
Sakoda: Dio toga, religija je ionako uvijek bila više žensko područje. Kad imate zajednicu, pravoslavnu i katoličku, nemate sveštenice. Nemate više ni žena đakona. Mada, postoji oživljavanje toga u pravoslavnim crkvama. Dakle, to je stvar usmjerena na čovjeka.
Jacobsen: Istina.
Sakoda: Mislim da muškarci i žene malo drugačije reagiraju na traumu. Dio toga bi također mogao biti. Sjećam se MeToo pokreta, koji je započeo ili eksplodirao, i bilo je svih tih stvari o ženama koje objavljuju MeToo i govore o tome što rade da bi se zaštitile. Bio je jedan čovjek zbunjen. Objavio je: “Što radite da biste izbjegli seksualni napad?” On kaže: “Klonite se zatvora.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Žene su stalno izložene napadima ili nepoželjnim dodirima. Mislim da im daje simpatičniju perspektivu kada netko dođe i kaže: “Ovo mi se dogodilo.” Možda će vjerojatnije vjerovati da se to dogodilo vama jer se dogodilo njima. Mislim da ne biste mogli komunicirati s odraslom ženom koja nije bila napadnuta na bilo koji način. U vlaku ste ili autobusu i netko vas zgrabi za guzicu. Muškarci to ne doživljavaju tako često. Ne svi muškarci, ali možda je to varijabla.
Jacobsen: Doživio sam nešto od toga. Radio sam u nižerazrednom pubu.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Radio sam u stražnjem dijelu kuće, ponekad u prednjem dijelu. Radio sam u četiri restorana istovremeno i radio sam za dva od njih preko noći, sedam dana u tjednu. Sjećam se jednog barmena. Tražila bi od mene da posegnem za nečim i uhvatila bi se za trbuh, guzicu. To uznemiravanje nije traženo (smijeh). Mislim, iz onoga što čitam i što sam čula i što mi je rečeno, da to nije ni približno tako rašireno kao što je bilo za mnoge žene.
Sakoda: Mislim da mnogim muškarcima to ne pomaže, pogotovo ako ih je muškarac napao. Ideja je: “Zašto ga nisi odbio?” Dobiješ malo toga kao žena. Kao žena, često ćete dobiti, “Što si imala na sebi?”
Jacobsen: Isti ton iu pitanju. primjećujem. “Zašto ga nisi odbio?” je “Što si imao na sebi?” Što ste učinili da ovo prizovete na sebe?
Sakoda: Iskreno, ako sam dobrotvoran, samozaštita ljudi. Ako se može dogoditi tebi, može se dogoditi i meni. Stoga ste sigurno učinili nešto da to navučete na sebe. Inače se može dogoditi i meni.
Jacobsen: pitanje će pretpostaviti mušku snagu i samoobranu u pogledu agresije. Što se tiče žena, tu dobivam dva boda. S jedne strane, što nosiš? Moć mnogih žena u društvu povezana je s njihovom ljepotom. To je ono što je dodijeljeno. S druge strane, njihov odnos jedni prema drugima u smislu pričanja njihovih priča je relacijski. To je vidjeti tu priču u drugoj osobi.
Šakoda: Ono drugo, nešto što si rekao. Moj književni klub jednom je pročitao ovu knjigu Deborah Tannen, You Don’t Understand . Ona je lingvistica. Ona kaže da muškarci i žene govore različitim jezicima. Stavlja je na muškarce, izvorno lovce, i žene, sakupljačice. Dakle, ljudi, morali ste imati nekoga tko bi bio glavni. Morali ste imati hijerarhiju. Učinio si što ti je rečeno. Nisi pričao o tome. Rekao si, “Idi ti tamo. Ti idi tamo. To je ono što ćemo učiniti.” Žene bi provodile cijeli dan pričajući i skupljajući stvari. Dakle, žene razgovaraju kako bi stvorile međusobne odnose. Muškarci govore kako bi prenijeli informacije.
Jacobsen: Kao opća tendencija, kada se muškarci međusobno povezuju, zamislite ih kako sjede za kladom i govore paralelno, ne gledajući se. Žene, to je licem u lice.
Sakoda: Što kažete na to? [Smijeh] Sviđa mi se to. Sve smo pokušavale natjerati svoje muževe da pročitaju knjigu. Najgori je bio moj muž jer je bio zbunjen kad sam mu ispričala tu teoriju; on je pametan. Otišao je na Yale. On kaže: “Ne razumijem. Imamo odnos. Ti si moja žena.” Nije baš ono o čemu govorim u vezi s vezom. Čak i unutar SNAP-a, žene vođe razgovaraju jedna s drugom. Znamo što se jedno drugome događa u životima.
Jacobsen: “Kako si? Cindy se vratila s pogreba i jako joj je teško. Kathryn i njezina djeca su dobro. Jedan je upravo ušao u tešku poslovnu školu, a drugi je bolestan.” [Smijeh] Ove stvari.
Sakoda: To gradi odnose umjesto da netko glavni odlučuje, a tu je i redoslijed izbora. Žene mogu biti zlobne. Nemojte me krivo shvatiti, posebno tinejdžerice.
Jacobsen: Slažem se s Margaret Atwood. Ne mislim da su žene anđeli ili demoni.
Sakoda: Imaju drugačiji način međusobnog odnosa od muškaraca. To primjećujete u braku, odlascima u klub knjiga, jer niste na istoj valnoj duljini. Žene žele razgovarati o nečemu što će se dogoditi. Muškarci kažu: “Što želiš da učinim?”
Jacobsen: prenosi podatke za akciju umjesto izgradnje naracije za održavanje odnosa.
Sakoda: Da, to bi moglo učiniti žene suosjećajnijima za preživjele koji se javljaju. Pokušavaju se povezati s njima. Ne mislim da većina žena postane žena a da usput ne doživi neki seksualni napad.
Jacobsen: Možete li to ponoviti? To je vrlo moćna fraza.
Sakoda: Ne mislim da neke žene nisu bile seksualno zlostavljane, ako ćemo iskreno. Možda ne razmišljaju o tome. Netko te pipka u autobusu i okreće se i ne zna tko je to učinio. To je samo životna činjenica. Žene rade stvari. Moj muž je bio iznenađen. Rekao sam da većina žena parkira svoje automobile. Parkiraju ispod uličnog svjetla. Nose ključeve u rukama da nekome oči iskopaju. Kad navečer otvorim vrata auta, ako sam sam, prvo provjerim na stražnjem sjedalu.
Jacobsen: Ovaj posljednji bi mogao biti utjecaj Hollywooda.
Sakoda: To je nešto što ste pročitali. Ženski časopisi govore o svašta. Moj muž je rekao: “Gledaš li na stražnje sjedalo?” Rekao sam, “Da.” Moglo bi biti u poklopcu motora i iskočiti. [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [smijeh]
Sakoda: Ili ako, ponekad, žene čekaju lift i tip vam daje jezivu vibru, vi se pretvarate, “Zaboravio sam. Samo naprijed,” jer ne želiš vožnju s njim. Jedna od knjiga koju sam pročitao u proteklih nekoliko godina je Gavin de Becker. Zove se Dar straha . Imao je i drugu knjigu. Žene se uče da budu pristojnije. Moja kći se žali. Muškarci uvijek prekidaju žene.
Jacobsen: Istina. Ja to radim!
Sakoda: [Smije se] Ali oni čak i ne razmišljaju o tome, prekidaju. U svakom slučaju, žene koje bi trebale biti pristojne trebale bi to prihvatiti. Kad vas prekidaju, ne govorite ništa. Kažete: “Umiri se.” To je jedna od stvari. Možda je to razlog zašto su žene više izložene napadima jer pokušavaju biti pristojne. Oni ignoriraju. To je čekanje dizala, preplašiti se i ući u dizalo s njim jer ne želiš misliti da te preplašio [Smijeh]. Važno je. Ponekad, u crkvenim situacijama, ljudi ovo ignoriraju: mogli bi vidjeti svećenika ili učitelja kako grli dijete. Prožimat će njihov osjećaj pauka. Ali oni neće učiniti ništa po tom pitanju, osobito u crkvenim situacijama. “Imam tako prljav um da mislim da bi otac mogao imati nešto zlo na umu kad grli ovo dijete.” To je poput: “Ne, iz bilo kojeg razloga, imamo takve osjećaje. Moramo obratiti pozornost na njih.”
Jacobsen: Je li vjerojatno većina svećenika koji su zlostavljali do sada nikada nisu došli pred lice pravde? Oni koji su bili zlostavljani ostali su na vlasti ili su unaprijeđeni.
Sakoda: Da. Kao što rekoh, nemam tako dobar okvir za pravoslavne jer nema tako dobrog okvira. Ljudi su me znali pitati: “Kolika je stopa zlostavljanja u pravoslavnim crkvama?” Kako bih ja znao? Znam samo da ako pogledate imena na mojoj stranici, vjerojatno ih imam još deset koje ne mogu staviti na stranicu jer će mi netko napisati: Otac taj i taj me zlostavljao. Držim dosje o tome u slučaju da netko drugi naiđe niz cestu i dođe i tvrdi: “Otac taj i taj me je zlostavljao.” Sada sam zaboravio što ste pitali (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Većina onih koji su zlostavljali nisu došli pred lice pravde?
Sakoda: Nemam toliko informacija, ali znam u katoličkom kontekstu. Vrlo je mali broj svećenika procesuiran za svoje zločine. Dio toga je i problem zastare. Nakon dovoljno vremena nastupila je zastara. U SAD-u, Stognerova odluka, Kalifornija je pokušala učiniti ovo okolo, rekavši da neće promijeniti definicije zločina ili kazni. Ipak, dopustili bi pokretanje kaznenih predmeta nakon zastare. Vrhovni sud SAD-a rekao je: “Ne, ne možete to učiniti. To je kršenje ustavnih prava. Ne možete retroaktivno promijeniti kaznenu zastaru.” Ljudi se obično javljaju između 50 i 70. Šala je, nije lijepa, da zastara znači “Sranje od sreće”.
Jacobsen: Kako je to rekao George Carlin? “Ti bi bio SOL i JWF. Sranje od sreće i jako dobro sjeban.”
Sakoda: Dakle, postoji ta stvar. Ako shvatite da to rade crkve i pravoslavna crkva, ja nemam toliko podataka. Ne prijavljuju ih policiji. Zato i nemate toliko procesuiranja. Pokušavam razmišljati. Ovo je jedan od prvih velikih slučajeva. Mislim da je 1999. godine u jednom pravoslavnom samostanu u Texasu dvoje ljudi prijavljeno zbog seksualnog zlostavljanja djece. Abbott i njegova desna ruka, kako se zove? Otac Benedict Green, drugi tip je bio Jeremiah Hitt. Osim presude Pangratiosu koju smo otkrili, oni su bili prvi. Hitt je otišao na suđenje. Benedict je priznao krivnju. Ali još uvijek si imao sve te ljude koji nisu vjerovali u to.
Jacobsen: To nije kontroverzni dio. To je prilično za tečaj. Čak je i tip koji je vodio trgovinu ljudima, seks trgovinu i seks kult, Keith Raniere, bio dio HBO-ove specijalne ili dokumentarne serije, Zavjet , gdje je bio avangarda u NXIVM-u. Dobio je doživotni zatvor, kao i nekoliko njegovih sudionika, muškaraca i žena. Ipak, u zatvoru ga mnogi brane.
Šakoda: Da, u ovom konkretnom slučaju, 2006. godine, bio je drugi set optužbi. Nove žrtve dolaze naprijed višestruke žrtve. Ne mogu se sjetiti je li njih 5 ili 6 bilo optuženo i svi su osuđeni. Benedict Green se ubio prije nego što je mogao ići na suđenje jer mislim da je znao da će ići u zatvor. Uostalom, ovo mu je bila druga osuda. Ovo je bilo u Teksasu. Ne želiš ići u zatvor u Teksasu ili Floridi. [smijeh]
Jacobsen: Ne! Vrijeme je loše.
Sakoda: Nijedan zatvor nije istinski human, po mom mišljenju, nakon što sam posjetio razne zatvore u Kaliforniji. Posebno su loši. Na Floridi također možete ući u lančanu bandu. Znate li što je lančana banda?
Jacobsen: Ne.
Sakoda: Pustili su zatvore na rad na cesti. Koliko je star onaj film Paula Newmana o toj lančanoj bandi? Postoji glavna namirnica na jugu. Nećete ih naći u ostatku zemlje. Možda imaju programe. Kalifornija ima program u kojem vas mogu pustiti da se borite protiv požara.
Jacobsen: Iskreno, ne znam što je gore: besplatno gašenje požara ili biti u zatvoru.
Sakoda: Barem si vani. Mnogima je teško ne biti vani.
Jacobsen: To je kao jedan čovjek kojeg govorite o MeToo. Vjerojatno bi radije bio vani i gasio požare nego bio u zatvoru, jer bi se bojao da će biti seksualno napadnut.
Sakoda: Imao je vjerojatno 400 ili 500 funti. Ne bi ga trebali pustiti da gasi požare.
Jacobsen: Strukturno, potrebno je raditi.
Sakoda: Osim toga, on je u svom prvom kaznenom procesu došao na svoj prvi kazneni postupak s bocom za kisik. Ovo je uobičajena taktika za zlostavljače da se pojave na štakama u invalidskim kolicima.
Jacobsen: To je prikupiti simpatije.
Sakoda: Da, bilo je smiješno. Upravo je bio u Coloradu bez kisika. Dakle, ljudi su to prihvatili. Drugi set punjenja kad su sišli. Na neki način, to je bila prekretnica. Tada smo dobili više kredibiliteta. Prva optužba, rekli su ljudi – moja druga najdraža stvar, jest da se “otac izjasnio krivim samo kako bi spriječio tu žrtvu da mora lagati na klupi za svjedoke.” Kad se izjasniš krivim, moraš reći da sam ovo učinio, učinio sam ovo, pod prisegom. Je li mu bolje da laže? Nevjerojatno je koliko malo ljudi želi vjerovati da se ovo dogodilo. Pravoslavlje je savršeno spremno vjerovati da se to dogodilo u Katoličkoj crkvi.
Jacobsen: To je drugačiji okvir na NIMBY-ju. To se ne događa u mom dvorištu, ali ni ovdje.
Sakoda: Najviše će reći “Imaju oni svećenici u celibatu”. I pravoslavni svećenici mogu biti u celibatu. Neki od njih su zlostavljači. Svi pravoslavni episkopi ili moraju biti udovci. Bilo je biskupa koji su svoje žene smjestili u samostane. Moraju biti i neoženjeni. Dakle, imate dijelove svećenstva u celibatu u Pravoslavnoj crkvi. Ali mislim da ljudi imaju ideju da je to izbor. Morate odlučiti jeste li u celibatu ili ste u braku prije nego što se zaredite i imate izbor. Ali što se događa sa svećenikom čija žena umre? Ne može se ponovno vjenčati u pravoslavlju i biti svećenik. Dakle, dio je toga što je oženjen ili što je svećenik. Pred njim je težak izbor. Ali mislim da je glavna stvar to što ljudi svećenike u celibatu izjednačavaju sa zlostavljanjem. Zlostavljanje se ne odnosi na seks. Riječ je o moći i kontroli. To je kroz sredstvo seksa. To zbunjuje žrtvu.
Jacobsen: To se vraća na pitanje neupitne moći u toj određenoj strukturi. Ako imaju taj transcendentalni status koji se povezuje s nečim božanskim, mnogo je teže to dovoditi u pitanje, pogotovo ako ste odrasli ili bili prožeti time. Mnogo je teže to propitivati.
Sakoda: Mnogi svećenici govore uvjerljive laži. To je ono što Bog želi da činite. Ponekad će za djevojke reći: “Bog želi da te indoktriniram o tome što znači biti kršćanska žena,” ili tako nešto. To je jedna od onih stvari u kojima morate biti u situaciji. Morate biti dijete i shvatiti sve što se dogodilo prije ili druga taktika. Bio je to Phil Saviano. Razotkrivao je Katoličku crkvu. Rekao je: ‘Svećenik mi je dao pivo i dao mi pornografiju.’
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: ‘Sljedeći put je htio da idem dalje. Nisam mogao reći ‘Ne’ jer sam bio kompromitiran pivom i pornografijom.’ To je način na koji dječji umovi funkcioniraju.
Jacobsen: Da, u nekim od ovih priča ljudi nazaduju. Način na koji pričaju. Ne mogu samo reći ovom svećeniku “odjebi”, kolokvijalno rečeno.
Sakoda: Imao sam jednog čovjeka koji je dolazio na moje sastanke. Ne znam je li dolazio više puta. Imam sastanke podrške za preživjele. Rekao je: “Nisam siguran da bih trebao biti tamo”, jer je bio tamo kad ga je svećenik pokušao dotaknuti. Udario ga je i pobjegao.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: On kaže: “Nisam bio zlostavljan,” ali ono što se dogodilo je da je njegovo povjerenje u instituciju umrlo, bilo da ga je svećenik doista dotaknuo ili ga je samo pokušao dotaknuti, a on je dobio udarac. Pokušavam reći ljudima sve vrijeme. Čak i ako pobjegnete, mnogi se ljudi smrznu. Čak i da ste ga zamrznuli ili udarili šakom, i dalje biste osjećali tu štetu. “O moj Bože, on bi trebao biti svećenik.” Posebno djeco, što učiniti da se zaštitite sljedeći put? “To mora biti nešto što sam ja učinio. Što da učinim da promijenim ovu situaciju?” Samo si na krivom mjestu u krivo vrijeme s krivom osobom. Vjerojatno ne možete ništa učiniti, posebno za malu djecu. Odrastao muškarac i 6-godišnjak, to nije ni poštena borba.
Jacobsen: 18, 20, 25, još uvijek imaju dosta razvoja osjećaja i stajanja u tome. Može biti mnogo ako ih dovoljno gurnete. Ne treba toliko gurati. Potrebno je dosta vremena da se dobije okosnica.
Sakoda: Posebno ako se suprotstavite nekome za koga vam je rečeno da predstavlja Boga. Sjećam se jednog preživjelog. Bio je zlostavljan kao odrasla osoba. Bio je sjemeništarac. Kad ga je svećenik napao, on se sledio. Bio je šokiran što bi svećenik to učinio. Poslije je imao toliko samooptuživanja i gađenja jer “Zašto nisam nešto učinio?” Mislim da je to teško. To nije samo borba ili bijeg. To je također borba, borba, smrzavanje, smrzavanje i udovoljavanje. Ljudi to zaborave. To se događa. Može postaviti uzorak. To zamrzavanje i popustljivost mogu vas pratiti u sličnim situacijama do kraja života. Možete se vratiti na taj odgovor umjesto da učinite nešto drugačije. Mislim da je trauma pohranjena u drugom dijelu mozga. Utječe na vaše ponašanje na načine kojih niste uvijek svjesni. Netko mi je rekao. Kad im je zlostavljač rekao da će ih ubiti ako progovore, a kad su progovorili, bili su prestravljeni. Ideja da dolazi sjekira. Iako je njihov zlostavljač bio mrtav, bilo je zastrašujuće javiti se zbog onoga što im je rečeno.
Jacobsen: Alati religijske indoktrinacije, po mom mišljenju, temelje se na strahu. Mnogo toga je pojačano strahom od smrti. “Radije ne bih razmišljao o ideji da bih prestao postojati i, prema tome, postojati vječno u nekoj drugoj transcendentnoj dimenziji.”
Sakoda: Dakle, “moram napraviti x, y i z.” To je poput naplatnih kuća. “Moram činiti sve što mi moj duhovnik kaže ili ću biti zauvijek proklet.”
Jacobsen: Najlakša prezentacija, mislim da je u suprotnosti s… životnom filozofijom ti si plamen. Kad jednom ugasiš plamen, ne ide nikamo. Jednostavno prestaje biti. Mislim da je i nama tako.
Sakoda: Nitko ne zna jer se nitko nije vratio (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Točno, ljudi koji vjeruju u Urija Gellera, kojeg je James Randi prikazao kao prevaranta na nacionalnoj televiziji na Johnnyju Carsonu. Slične krivotvorine i prijevare, i tako dalje, primjećujem isti fenomen koji opisujete kod pojedinaca koji iznose zlouporabu. Imaju javne slučajeve. Imaju podatke do 2020. Imaju novinske organizacije koje katalogiziraju stvari poput Hermine i Katherine. Ljudi, poput Dosjea X , žele vjerovati.
Sakoda: Imaju. Dio toga je da želite nastaviti s nečim većim od sebe. To je u redu. Ono što ne možeš imati je da me moj otac uništio. Rekao je: “Melanie, imaš glavu za učiniti više od ukrašavanja svojih ramena.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Fokusirao se na razmišljanje svojom glavom i nije govorio ljudima što da rade. Mislim da postoji taj element društvene uvjetovanosti. Gdje se trebaš pokoravati učiteljima. Trebao bi se pokoravati svećenicima. U osnovi, ljudi ne govore: “Što ako je svećenik kreten?” Što da im radim? Seksualno zlostavljanje je rašireno u društvu. Mislim da bi se to našlo u Crkvi. Mislim da bi mogli učiniti mnogo više da crkve učine sigurnijim mjestom ako ljudi idu u njih.
Jacobsen: Vjerojatno je to pilula koju je teško progutati jer čini da crkve izgledaju kao sve druge institucije, što će reći, ljudske. Tu je i činjenica da indoktrinacija počinje tako rano. Slažem se s Hipatijom. Ako nekoga prožmete dovoljno rano, vrlo mu je teško razotkriti moralne stvari, praznovjerja koja su izgrađena oko ovog kompleksa teologije i društvenog života, zajednice i rituala, te neupitni autoritet tih svećenika i biskupa .
Sakoda: Ipak, neki to prevladaju. Poznajem ženu koja vodi Bishop Accountability, Ann Barrett Doyle. Bila je jedna od onih koji su odgajani kao katolici. Sjećam se da sam čitao nešto o njoj. To je bilo kad je imala 14 godina. Njihov svećenik je nešto govorio. Mislila je da je to smiješno i ustala je. Dakle, kao što je moj otac rekao, imate ljude koji vjeruju u korištenje glave ili savjesti i progovaranje kada vide da nešto nije u redu. Osjećati se ugodno i imati nekoga tko vam govori što da radite je primamljivije. To nije vaša odgovornost.
Jacobsen: To je zastrašujuće za neke ljude.
Sakoda: Strašno je i na drugi način.
Jacobsen: Naravno.
Sakoda: Dakle, ako te starješina zamoli da nekoga ubiješ, ti kažeš: “Da, naravno.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Onda ti idi i napravi to. Ali ti ćeš ići u Nebo jer si poslušao svoga duhovnog oca. To je, po meni, zastrašujuće. Mislim da je to perverzija onoga što religija zapravo jest.
Jacobsen: Budući da ste mi posvetili toliko svog dragocjenog vremena, gospođo.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Postavit ću posljednje pitanje.
Sakoda: Je li to trik pitanje? [smijeh]
Jacobsen: Nadam se da ne će. Kad biste mogli uputiti ljude na pojedince ili izvore kojima se mogu obratiti za pomoć ako dolaze iz pravoslavne tradicije, koga bi trebali potražiti? Od kojih organizacija mogu dobiti pomoć? Također, za sebe ili druge koji rade ovu vrstu posla, evo mog dosadašnjeg iskustva. To su – doslovno – žene koje rade ovaj posao. Kako ih mogu podržati svojim vremenom, vještinama, volonterskim naporima i financijama? Koji su načini pomoći također?
Sakoda: Što se tiče organizacija kao što je SNAP, imamo grupe podrške za preživjele. Slijede model sastanka AA. Većina ih ljudi nalazi ili kao dodatak terapiji ili ih neki koriste umjesto terapije. To je način upoznavanja drugih preživjelih ili odlaska u sobu gdje kažete: “Ovo mi se dogodilo kad sam imao 6 godina.” Umjesto da se ljudi okreću na drugu stranu ili govore: “Moraš oprostiti i zaboraviti,” ili bilo što. Ljudi će reći: “Razumijemo.”
Jacobsen: #Crkva također.
Sakoda: Da. U ovoj zemlji također postoji grupa pod nazivom RAINN, Rape Abuse Incest National Network. Imaju neke od istih usluga koje nude. Međutim, nisu specijalizirani za religiju ili religijsko zlostavljanje. SNAP je jedini za kojeg znam da to radi. Njegova misija je podržati one koji su preživjeli zlostavljanje i vjerske institucije. Možda ovo nije ono što ste ovime mislili. Mislim što ljudi mogu učiniti da pomognu. Ako netko dođe i povjeri ti se, kad sam imala 10 godina, moj svećenik me silovao, ili moj župnik ili što već.
Jacobsen: Ozbiljnost, samo čuti je vrlo… Ako čujete tu rečenicu, zastanite i poslušajte što vam govore; ne lažu ti, najvjerojatnije.
Sakoda: Što oni imaju od toga?
Jacobsen: Ozbiljno.
Sakoda: Što kažeš? Kažete: “Žao mi je. Žao mi je što ti se to dogodilo. Što mogu učiniti da vas podržim?” Možda ne možete učiniti puno toga. Možda je ovo njihovo iscjeljujuće putovanje. Ako prihvatite ono što oni kažu… Imao sam jednog preživjelog pravoslavca koji je bio zlostavljan. Kad sam počela razgovarati s njim, bilo je automatski, “Tako mi je žao što ti se dogodilo.” Počeo je plakati. Što da kažem? Rasplačem muškarce. Rekao je: “Nitko mi to nikada prije nije rekao. Da im je žao zbog onoga što mi se dogodilo.” To je kao, to je tužno.
Jacobsen: To prekida čaroliju. Kradem od sada već pokojnog filozofa, Daniela Dennetta, koji je napisao knjigu pod nazivom Razbijanje čarolije: Religija kao prirodni fenomen . Što učiniš kad to učiniš, društveno, barem za mene, razbiješ čaroliju. Muškarcima time razbijaš čaroliju.
Sakoda: Da, to pomaže; Što se tiče toga što može pomoći zagovornicima, ako su uključeni u organizaciju, možete je podržati. Kao što sam rekao, nikada ne dobivamo podršku da preuzmemo status neprofitne organizacije. Možda se i dogodi. Neću zadržati dah. Katolička crkva, čovjek bi pomislio da će pravoslavci razmišljati o SNAP-u. “To je za katolike.” Bilo je smiješno. Poslao sam jednu ženu. Bila je zlostavljana kao starija tinejdžerica. Mislim da je imala 19 godina, i to od pravoslavnog svećenika. Rekao sam: “Zašto ne probati jedan sastanak? Što će boljeti?” Rekla je: “O moj Bože, nisu imali redovni sastanak.” Ovaj je imao predstavu koja se izvodila u društvenom kazalištu ili tako nešto. Grupa ga je otišla vidjeti i podržati ga. Ona kaže: “O moj Bože, on je bio muškarac. Bila sam žena. Bio je katolik. Bio sam pravoslavac. Pričao je moju priču.”
Mislim da je to ono što možete pronaći u zajednici. Ako pronađete drugu organizaciju koja to radi, podržite ih! Jer to je natjerati ljude da se javljaju sve ranije i ranije. Ako imamo djecu koja se jave, onda će imati kaznene presude. Šanse su sljedeće: ako to objavi policija, ako drugi znaju, dobit ćete osude i neke od ovih ljudi iza rešetaka, a ne iza propovjedaonice. Što više to činite, više će ljudi biti spremni vjerovati u to. I dalje će postojati nekoliko vjerskih zanesenjaka koji nikad ne povjeruju u cijelu tu stvar o tome da je “Držao je ruke na njega!” Postoje neke promjene u katolicizmu, počevši s O, koje se događaju kada se zaredite. Najbolji odgovor koji sam ikad nekome dao, posebice Pravoslavnoj crkvi, bio je: “Crkva je možda mistična. To nije magija. Ako je netko zlostavljač prije nego što je zaređen, bit će zlostavljač i poslije. Ne će ih automatski popraviti.”
Publication (Outlet/Website): Love a Wholistic Life Inc.
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the CDC’s statistic that two in five U.S. adults are living with obesity reflect broader societal trends?
Christen Kaplan and Elizabeth Inman: First, let’s look at what the definition of overweight or obesity means. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines overweight and obesity as having “excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health.” So, what does this mean for American adults? It means that obesity is a leading public health problem in the United States. The latest data from the CDC indicates that approximately 75% of adults aged 20 and older fall into the overweight and obese categories and 1 out of 10 of those are considered morbidly or severely morbidly obese. This is a serious concern because the five leading causes of preventable death in the United States are heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease (COPD), type 2 diabetes, and cancer which are all conditions linked to lifestyle choices and excessive weight gain.
According to the Joint Economic Committee Congress of The United States, obesity alone costs the U.S. healthcare system almost $283 billion annually on obesity-related direct health costs and is a major driver of federal healthcare spending. This includes money spent directly on medical care and prescription drugs that are related to the lifestyle conditions associated with extreme weight gain. Lastly, another important statistic from Human Resource & Payroll estimates that conditions associated with excessive weight gain have caused an additional $435.5 billion in economic costs to U.S. businesses and employers in 2023. Included in these expenses are medical costs to employers, higher disability payments, higher workers’ compensation program costs, and absenteeism at work. All of these economic societal trends severely affect the way our society functions.
Jacobsen: How does Love a Wholistic Life approach obesity differently?
Kaplan and Inman: At Love A Wholistic Life, we believe that education is the key to empowerment. Our holistic approach takes a comprehensive look at the body, examining its physical, emotional, and mental dimensions. Rather than simply focusing on weight loss, we prioritize uncovering the root causes of obesity. We recognize that excessive weight gain often signals deeper lifestyle conditions, emotional struggles, or unresolved issues. Research indicates that around 75% of excessive eating is emotionally driven, turning into habits that obscure underlying feelings. Many individuals’ resort to food as a means of escape, coping, or numbing rather than addressing their emotions head-on.
By providing our clients with the tools and resources they need, we help them address these underlying factors, fostering sustainable change rather than temporary fixes. Our program emphasizes education and self-discovery, equipping individuals with knowledge about their bodies and behaviors. Through personalized and online coaching, we guide our clients in developing healthier habits and making informed choices that support their overall well-being. Our clients learn to approach food and lifestyle with intention and mindfulness. This holistic journey not only promotes weight loss but also enhances overall quality of life, empowering individuals to thrive in all aspects of their health.
Jacobsen: How might Love A Wholistic Life address the root causes of lifestyle diseases?
Kaplan and Inman: Addressing the causes of lifestyle diseases involves understanding their multifaceted origins and understanding what the definition of a lifestyle disease means. A lifestyle disease is a health condition primarily influenced by an individual’s lifestyle choices and behaviors rather than by genetic factors or infectious agents. These diseases are often preventable and can be linked to factors such as poor diet, lack of quality sleep, stress, lack of physical activity, tobacco use, recreational drug use, overconsumption of prescription drugs, and excessive alcohol consumption. Common examples of lifestyle diseases include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, inflammatory disease, and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle diseases typically develop over time due to cumulative unhealthy habits and can often be managed or mitigated through lifestyle changes. We find that the best approach is addressing these conditions through education. By teaching our clients what it means when they have been diagnosed with these lifestyle diseases, we explain what is going on in their bodies when they have a lifestyle disease, how they got the disease in the first place, and how they can use healthy lifestyle choices to control and possibly eliminate these conditions. Using natural approaches such as proper nutrition, getting active, and reducing or eliminating foods and behaviors that sabotage their health is key to improving and even reversing lifestyle disease. Basically, we teach people how to understand their body from the inside out as opposed to just thinking about it from just a weight loss perspective. In addition, we educate our clients to be advocates for their health by asking their healthcare professionals questions until they have a full understanding of what is happening in their bodies.
Jacobsen: What experience of loss has shaped your experience to wellness?
Kaplan and Inman: As children, we watched our parents grapple with the harsh realities of lifestyle diseases. Our mother’s struggle with prescription drug addiction and our father’s battle with severe obesity left deep scars on our family. It wasn’t just their health that suffered; the emotional toll reverberated through every aspect of our lives. We learned early on how devastating these conditions could be, not just for the individuals but for the entire family. As we transitioned into adulthood, we hoped to leave behind the struggles of our youth. Yet, in a cruel twist of fate, lifestyle diseases reared its ugly head yet again. At just 52, our oldest brother was taken from us far too soon due to heart disease, kidney failure and other complications associated with type 2 diabetes. His passing served as a stark reminder that these issues know no bounds—they can affect anyone, regardless of age or circumstance. Each of these experiences became a powerful lesson, igniting a passion for nutrition and wellness within us. We realized that understanding the roots of these diseases was essential not just for our own health, but for breaking the cycle within our family. We immersed ourselves in learning about healthy living, exploring how nutrition, exercise, and mental well-being intertwine. Our journey transformed from one of pain to one of empowerment.
We began advocating for healthier lifestyles, not just for ourselves but for others in our community. We became passionate about sharing our story, hoping to inspire change and raise awareness about the importance of nutrition and healthy lifestyle choices. In doing so, we discovered a renewed sense of purpose— turning our past struggles into a beacon of hope for ourselves and those around us. We are committed to breaking the cycle of lifestyle diseases, proving that change is possible and that every step toward health is a step toward a brighter future.
Jacobsen: What are key principles of plant-based nutrition?
Kaplan and Inman: To truly grasp the key principles of plant-based nutrition, we first need to understand what the term “food” encompasses. According to Oxford Languages, “food” refers to any nutritious whole or minimally processed items primarily derived from plant sources, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Plant-based nutrition advocates for a diverse range of food choices to ensure a wide array of natural options that are low in calories yet high in fiber, antioxidants, nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. It encourages the inclusion of healthy fats from sources like avocados and olive oil, as well as plant-based proteins from beans and legumes. Additionally, it promotes limiting added sugars and processed foods. For our clients, we emphasize that these foods play a crucial role in their bodies, not only supporting growth but also nourishing every cell and organ. This nutrient-rich approach helps our bodies thrive, bolsters the immune system, and provides essential protection for overall health.
Jacobsen: How do you define a healthy relationship with food?
Kaplan and Inman: A healthy relationship with food begins with the understanding that it serves as more than just sustenance; food has the power to heal and nourish our bodies on multiple levels. Recognizing this transformative potential can shift our perspective and highlight the importance of choosing a nutrient-dense diet rich in fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains. When we view food through the lens of healing, we start to appreciate its role in enhancing our well-being. Each bite becomes an opportunity to nourish not only our bodies but also our minds and spirits. Foods packed with vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants can help reduce inflammation, boost our immune system, and support our mental health. For example, vibrant fruits and vegetables provide essential nutrients that contribute to overall vitality, while whole grains offer sustained energy and promote digestive health. Furthermore, embracing this philosophy encourages mindfulness in our eating habits. It invites us to cultivate a deeper connection with our food—considering where it comes from, how it’s prepared, and the impact it has on our health. This awareness can foster more intentional choices, steering us away from processed foods laden with unhealthy additives and toward whole, nourishing options that support our well-being and guide us through our journey to good health.
Jacobsen: What role does empathy play in your work with clients?
Kaplan and Inman: In our opinion, empathy is one of the most vital qualities for success in our business. The ability to genuinely put ourselves in our clients’ shoes—both emotionally and situationally—allows us to grasp their unique perspectives and challenges. This deep understanding gives us a comprehensive view of their needs, enabling us to address their health issues in a more personalized manner. Empathy also empowers us to meet our clients exactly where they are in their journey. By acknowledging their emotional state, we can address not only their physical well-being but also their mental and emotional health. This holistic approach fosters a supportive environment where clients feel heard and valued. Our commitment to empathy goes beyond transactions; we strive to build meaningful relationships. In the process, we’ve not only gained clients but have also cultivated amazing long-term friendships. We take pride in being more than just their nutritionist and wellness coach; we aim to be a trusted ally in our clients’ lives. Their stories and experiences inspire us to continually improve and adapt our services, ensuring that we are not just meeting expectations but exceeding them.
Jacobsen: What role does empathy play in your work with clients?
Kaplan and Inman: In our opinion, empathy is one of the most vital qualities for success in our business. The ability to genuinely put ourselves in our clients’ shoes—both emotionally and situationally—allows us to grasp their unique perspectives and challenges. This deep understanding gives us a comprehensive view of their needs, enabling us to address their health issues in a more personalized manner. Empathy also empowers us to meet our clients exactly where they are in their journey. By acknowledging their emotional state, we can address not only their physical well-being but also their mental and emotional health. This holistic approach fosters a supportive environment where clients feel heard and valued. Our commitment to empathy goes beyond transactions; we strive to build meaningful relationships. In the process, we’ve not only gained clients but have also cultivated amazing long-term friendships. We take pride in being more than just their nutritionist and wellness coach; we aim to be a trusted ally in our clients’ lives. Their stories and experiences inspire us to continually improve and adapt our services, ensuring that we are not just meeting expectations but exceeding them.
Jacobsen: What are the most common misconceptions people have about nutrition and tackling obesity?
Kaplan and Inman: One common misconception is that all carbohydrates are alike, but that’s simply not true! There are actually two main types of carbohydrates: simple and complex.
Simple carbohydrates are often found in ultra-processed foods like soda, baked treats, packaged cookies, fruit juice concentrates, and many breakfast cereals. These carbs provide a quick boost of energy but can also spike blood sugar levels. Because they lack fiber and essential nutrients, simple carbs are often referred to as “empty calories.”
On the other hand, complex carbohydrates are found in whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables. They offer a more gradual release of energy, leading to a slower, steadier rise in blood sugar over time. Complex carbohydrates are not only beneficial for sustained energy but are also easily processed by the body, providing essential nutrients that support overall health.
Another common misconception is that all fats are unhealthy. That is also not true. In fact, healthy fats, such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, are found in foods like avocados, wild-caught fish, nuts, seeds, and extra virgin olive oil. These fats provide protein, fiber, and essential vitamins, playing vital roles in building cell membranes, aiding blood clotting, supporting muscle movement, and promoting heart and brain health.
In contrast, unhealthy fats include saturated fats and trans fats. These fats are typically found in animal-based foods such as fatty cuts of meat, dairy products, and tropical oils like coconut and palm oil, which are often used in fried foods, baked goods, and processed snacks. These unhealthy fats can negatively impact cholesterol and blood sugar levels, increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
Some of our clients have held the misconception that taking a daily multivitamin allows them to eat less healthy foods without consequence. While multivitamins can be beneficial for filling certain nutritional gaps, they are not a substitute for a well-balanced diet. A nutritious diet rich in fiber, protein, antioxidants, and healthy fats provides a range of essential nutrients that multivitamins simply cannot replicate. Whole foods offer synergistic benefits that enhance nutrient absorption and overall health. For example, fruits and vegetables are packed with antioxidants that help combat oxidative stress, while whole grains provide fiber that supports digestive health. Additionally, healthy fats from sources like avocados and nuts contribute to brain health and hormone regulation.
Relying solely on supplements can lead to deficiencies in key nutrients and may not provide the same health benefits as consuming a variety of whole foods. Ultimately, a balanced diet is crucial for maintaining optimal health, supporting bodily functions, and reducing the risk of chronic diseases.
Jacobsen: How do you measure success in clients?
Kaplan and Inman: Success often holds different meanings for each of our clients. Since we primarily work with individuals struggling with obesity and lifestyle diseases, their definitions of success depend on the personal goals they set. Some clients focus solely on weight loss, while many aim to reduce their reliance on prescription medications. Common concerns among our clients include regulating blood pressure, lowering glucose levels, and reducing cholesterol. We measure their success by assessing how well they transition into positive lifestyle changes that are sustainable beyond our support. As they achieve their personal goals, we empower them with the tools and knowledge necessary to maintain a lifestyle that promotes a healthy quality of life.
Adopting healthy lifestyle changes, such as proper nutrition, is not merely about eating the right foods; it also involves understanding why our bodies require these nutrients and recognizing the detrimental effects of the Standard American Diet, which often leads to lifestyle diseases. Clients must embrace the reality that their choices can have either a positive impact on their health or lead to negative consequences. While some clients find that they can maintain their progress with little to no ongoing support after just a few months in the program, others face a longer journey and require our guidance until they feel confident managing on their own. The rise of “quick-fix” prescription weight-loss drugs has made our job more challenging, often undermining long-term success for many in the overweight and obese community. This is a constant battle for us, but it’s one we are committed to fighting for the well-being of our clients.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Christen and Elizabeth.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jabobsen with the second part of an interview conducted with Allie Jackson, the group’s CEO.
If you haven’t read it yet, go back to see the article “Interview with Allie Jackson – CEO, Atheist Republic Part 1” by clicking here.
Jacobsen: If we’re looking at Atheist Republic, what are we looking at in terms of demographics? Jackson: Not surprisingly, mostly male, I do look at the demographics that follow our page. We have ~70% men to ~30% women. It is uneven there. What I find is most of our followers are probably ex-Muslim, we have a huge American, Canadian, European following.
Jacobsen: Since they are mostly men, younger, and ex-Muslim, are these the countries that the ex-Muslim men, not necessarily flee to but, get away from the dominant Islamic culture? Jackson: It always starts off with that is what they think is going to happen. However, it’s something very emotional for me. A family, an entire family, had to flee Pakistan over a man saying, “Atheists might not be that bad,” on social media. People ransacked his house.
They had to take his children and flee to an island north of Australia, which they got to them. Their asylum there. Then they had to go to the Philippines. Mostly, it is what you can afford. If you look at the atheist community, there are not a lot of groups that help with asylum.
Asylum costs money. People need to get to these countries. They need lawyers. If no lawyers, they are taken advantage of. There was an Iranian atheist I was helping. He got a lawyer that had no idea. He had no clue about these kinds of processes.
One of the letters he wrote cost this man his asylum. The wording he used cost him his asylum. When it was all submitted and the lawyer said, “I am sure it will be fine. He is scared to go back home,” no there was a video of an Islamic video describing the beheading they were going to give him when he returned to Iran.
That is not scared to go home. That is not, “I am scared someone might hurt me.” There are people actively trying to kill him. You must be so careful about what you say in these cases. People take advantage of these cases, take their money.
The Atheist Alliance International is one of the few atheist groups that they do help with this. So, everything I know about asylum, everything that I gather is from experience. I learn from one case at a time.
When I am constantly bombarded with people saying, “I need asylum. These people are going to kill me. These people found a letter I wrote. These people saw a text message I sent to somebody. They are going to kill me. My dad and family are going to kill me,” you can only sit there and listen to that as an emotional shoulder for so long.
After that, you must get your hands into this. You must start mapping out ideas for asylum. So, I hit the books. I mean non-literally [Laughing]. I hit Google. I started getting contacts and figuring out: What is the process? What can help?
Jacobsen: Who can help them? Jackson: That is a hard question.
Jacobsen: Let’s say, within North America, if not necessarily help, then give guidance. Should they contact some branch of Amnesty International or another organization like that?
Jackson: The UNHCR, I have worked with them the past couple of months. We have been dealing with a couple reports on what they will do for asylum seekers, and for people from Islamic countries that are atheists seeking help, because many will not talk to me.
They won’t tell me what is going on. Although, I have sent letters to one of their clients, but they will not respond to me. Finally, I got letters from their legal department, reminding me that they won’t talk to me.
I have been considering them, asking, “What will you do for these people?” The Pakistani family – that I told you about – that after he had been denied, after I sent in a letter from Atheist Republic describing what this person was going through, and that it was a verified story.
The person called them and said that they had to leave and had 90 days. I began to cry. He said, “I can’t bring my family back to Pakistan. They are going to kill me. I committed blasphemy.” If they are going to work for ex-Muslims, or for people who are seeking refuge in another country because atheism is deadly in Islamic countries, they need to know this is an issue.
I said:
Who can I talk to so I can file a report, to help you guys help people? Do you know what atheists face in Islamic countries?” I have been getting little help by the legal department. It is difficult to tell people, “You can go to this or that person because they can help you.
I feel as if I am doing that I am passing the buck. In this case, it is somebody’s life. I can’t live with that. It has been hard. We get so many cases flowing in. Once they contact this or that organization, often, they get denied. Those organizations have 50 people coming to them per day.
It is not that they don’t care. They do. But finding an organization that is big enough and can handle the load that needs help, I don’t think it exists.
Jacobsen: I think of two cases or themes. We both know women especially in religiously dominated countries – where religion and government are one and the same – that women are functionally or effectively second-class citizens.
Bearing in mind, the religion is mixed with the government. So, if it is costing money, as you noted, to take on these cases or to travel to another country and then pay for the legal assistance, if you’re a woman that is poor, it doesn’t even come out as an option.
It might explain some of the first waves of this, into more secular societies, being men, possibly. Men will have the finances to do so. I think of another case, not from that perspective, but internal to North America.
There are issues for non-believing women who – it is a sensibility, so it is not a firm argument – must work through the arts over decades to get some manner of influence. I think of Margaret Atwood.
Where she takes real cases, in parts, compiles them into a narrative, in some near-future dystopia, with the most famous example being The Handmaid’s Tale, which is coming out, I guess, in some television series, do these seem like possible trends – not from argument, but more from sensibilities and so very loose perceptions of things?
Jackson: It is hard for me. I think of women who are trapped in religion. I think of women who break out of religion, and why. In my time of doing what I do, I am not talking about the Atheist Republic work; I am talking about the one-on-one support group.
I met three women in two years, who have come out wanting help. People ask, “Why? Why is that?” I can only speak by what those few have told me. They understood that they were a slave. They understood where they were.
They said that their dream of becoming free was too great. To know there is a way to get out, and not pursue that dream, they would rather kill themselves. One woman was being abused by her husband.
Our communication didn’t get far. She said she lost faith in Islam. She had two children. Her husband beat her and her kids, and treated her terribly. The last communication I got from her said, “He found our communications. I have to say, ‘Goodbye.’”
I don’t know what happened to her. I don’t know if she ever got out. More than likely, she was probably killed trying to leave her husband, leave Islam. It is not a kind world to women. It is frustrating because, on the one hand, everyone has a right to an opinion. But on the other hand, I think people should want to become more educated on topics to hold the right opinion because when it comes to women in countries, it is heartbreaking. It is so heartbreaking what they must go through.
There are women who have taken Stockholm Syndrome. We know women who are captured by men. People who are captured by other people will begin to identify with their captors. But, I’m sorry.
When I see some women get up and say, “This is freedom for me,” I can’t help thinking of the women who felt that was slavery for them.
So, it is one of the things we were talking about earlier. We can’t block people. We can’t say, ‘All Muslims. All Christians.” I can’t say, “All women.” But I can say, ‘One woman’s freedom is another woman’s slavery.’
I think people who want to speak out against women being forced to wear a burqa. They don’t want to wear a burqa. I think that is perfectly valid. I think that we in America, and the West, need to stop looking at the burqa as a form of liberation.
It may be a form of liberation for some women, but let’s not block women. Let’s not put them into a block and say, “This is freedom for you. Take it.” It makes no sense. It is a contradictory statement [Laughing].
“You wearing that is a signal of your freedom.” It is hard.
Jacobsen: Going back to some of your Baptist roots, when you were in interaction as a very strong believer – Fox News, Baptist with father from an Abrahamic tradition, what was your perception of those that were out-and-out atheists – who were outspoken, articulate, and bold? Jackson: I didn’t feel they existed. I didn’t believe. My dad would tell me about these people who didn’t believe in God. I though they may live in the jungle in a tribe, so that was why they didn’t believe. I didn’t think they existed.
Who wouldn’t want the love of God? I couldn’t even comprehend it.
Jacobsen: If you look at statistics, America has a prominent level of belief in angels, efficacy of prayer, demons, heaven, and so on. Did you see what you deemed “evil” behavior as influenced by a real devil, a real Satan?
Jackson: Absolutely, I thoroughly believed in demons and Satan. I thought that, maybe, I had been possessed by a demon, who was taking over my thoughts or allowing me to focus on ungodly things and wants and desires.
I thought that could happen. When I was a child, my mother constantly talked about demons and hell. She put a huge fear of demons in us. I remember not being able to sleep because I was praying to God to keep me safe. I thought I did something bad, and so a demon would come.
My mom said we were possessed when I was a baby. She was recording babble when I was a baby. Obviously, it showed she wanted to hear the recording for some reason. It said, “Come with me mama, the baby wants you to go to hell.”
So, she had our preacher come by and exorcise the house, bless the house, if you will. Now, that I look back at the story and all the things she claimed would happen, such as doors opening and closing shut all at once in the house – cabinets would open and close all the time.
When I look back at what had to have happened because she gave the tape to my dad and her pastor, who said that to the recording? Demons aren’t real. I know that. I know demons aren’t real. It is amazing when you stop believing in demons how all that fear goes away.
No more possession and fear of possession. What lengths do people go to keep their beliefs? Is it really to the point of faking a tape, so that your preacher will come to the house and bless it? I looked at the things I did as well, to keep my faith.
The various positions I would take and try to rationalize how God allow rape and slavery. I would rationalize these things in my head, to make it okay for me to keep my belief. People will go through very strange rituals to prove what they believe is real. Scary.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, and the openness to express sensitive issues. Jackson: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about the issues and get a chance to tell people what we do at the Atheist Republic.
Scott Jacobsen in conversation with Leslea Mair, Co-Director Of Losing Our Religion.
Leslea Mair is the Co-Director of the documentary film Losing Our Religion. Her work builds on the research done by Linda LaScola and Daniel Dennett through the foundation of The Clergy Project. Here we explore the documentary film. The film is scheduled for purchase in November 2018. You may order your copy from the website Losing Our Religion.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration for the title and content of the new fabulous document film Losing Our Religion?
Leslea Mair: Wow, that’s quite a compliment! Thank you!
I wanted to make this film after hearing about The Clergy Project. I think changing your mind about something as important to your world view as religion is such an interesting process. But for ministers to stop believing struck me as a real personal earthquake. I read the stories of the non-believing clergy in Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola’s studies and really wanted to explore stories like that. I was so curious about how that plays out for people, not just in the short term.
Jacobsen: You co-directed the film with Leif Kaldor and based on the work of Professor Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola. How did you come into contact with Leif Kaldor and the research of Dennett and LaScola?
Mair: Leif and I met at a film festival in central Saskatchewan, close to where we both grew up, about 20 years ago. We’ve been business partners and a couple since then. We bring complementary skill sets to directing – we’ve made quite a number of films together. It’s a partnership that works really well for us.
I was the one who tripped across the studies that Dennett and LaScola published, but we were both intrigued by it from the start. I think I first read about them on some secular/atheist blogs and started thinking about what kind of story you could tell about it, so the film was kind of my baby at the start. But we always bounce ideas off one another, so Leif very quickly became involved in the process. His take on the subject was a little different than mine – his childhood had a lot more religious influence than mine did, so it was a good counterpoint to my thinking in the early stages of developing the idea.
Jacobsen: On reflection and reading of Dennett’s and LaScola’s work, what particular findings struck you, stood out to you?
Mair: The thing that really struck me was how traumatic giving up on believing was for people. You have to understand, I’ve never been a believer, so the idea that you can still be emotionally attached to the idea of a deity even when you’ve ceased believing in it was a little foreign to me. I wanted to understand that better.
What also made an impression on me – although it didn’t completely surprise me – was how swift and unkind, sometimes even cruel, the reactions to these people were when they either confessed or were found out. I was surprised by how strong that reaction was, and that the risks people take in talking frankly about nonbelief are very real and quite severe in some places.
Jacobsen: Minister Gretta Vosper contributed to the documentary film as well. What role did she play in the film?
Mair: Gretta is one of the people who is trying to make non-belief work in a traditionally believing environment. She’s an out atheist in the pulpit. The United Church of Canada is one of the most liberal and progressive denominations out there – I grew up in the United Church myself. So when Gretta and I first started talking, it totally made sense to me that if there was any organization that could handle this, it was this one. But there was still some serious pushback. She was called up on the carpet and has been judged unfit for ministry by a panel in the UCC, but she’s still in her congregation. They’re still trying to figure out what to do with her — they don’t know how to excommunicate her because they’ve never done anything like that — there’s no process, really. It would be funny if it didn’t have such serious repercussions for her.
What role Gretta and her congregation played was to show that a church-style community could be secular in nature. They’re trying to pull a shrinking institution into the future. It’s important work, and the struggle continues.
Jacobsen: How do their narratives speak to the stories of others throughout North America?
Mair: Brendan and Jenn Murphy are our primary characters. They’re a couple in the US — Brendan is a former evangelical pastor, Jenn is his wife.
When I met them, Brendan was a “closeted” atheist and still working in ministry, but Jenn was a devout believer. So they were dealing with multiple layers of crisis. Brendan had joined The Clergy Project and Linda LaScola had put him in touch with me. When he agreed to an interview, he wanted to bring Jenn along, and I was fine with that. I didn’t think it was going to amount to anything. I was SO wrong! Jenn’s a really brave and amazing woman. She was so nervous that day, but she still sat down and gave me not just an interview, but really opened up. This was a major shake-up for her in her personal life and in her faith, and I’m still blown away at how much courage she and Brendan had in doing this.
I was able to follow their story from that point, through leaving the ministry under duress and into their current lives.
Jacobsen: What documentary films speak to telling these important narratives of loss of faith, especially in countries without the massive number of public privileges won such as our own?
Mair: There are a few out there – one of our contributors, Jerry De Witt, is featured in a film that has an excerpt out on the New York Times Op Docs called “The Outcast of Beauregard Parish” about his experience exiting the ministry. And there’s a film called “One of Us” about the struggles of three ex-Hasidic Jews who are adjusting to secular life. And Bart Campolo has just come out with a film about his relationship with his father, Tony Campolo, and how they’ve navigated Bart leaving faith behind.
I don’t know of many films coming out of non-Western countries on the subject, but it’s very dangerous to approach atheism in many places. You’d be taking a grave risk and often putting your contributors in jeopardy. I’d love to find a way to do that if some risk could be minimized.
It’s also hard to find the funding to make a full-length documentary film, or I suspect we’d see a lot more of them. The stories are certainly out there, and there are more of them all the time as people leave faith behind. As far as I know, Losing Our Religion is the only feature-length documentary on The Clergy Project so far.
Jacobsen: What targeted areas of activism seem the most relevant at this moment in time now? For example, the work to prevent the ongoing attempts at the encroachment of individual rights to reproductive health including abortion, the rights to medical care, the right to die, and so on, from groups, ironically, with open, grand, self-righteous proclamations about individualism, the “divine individual,” and individual rights as the highest values to attain within the country – ironic because their preventative and obstructive attempts stand in opposition to these individual rights of legal persons in Canada, of full adult citizens in Canada. I see a similar tragic irony in pro-life activists killing doctors.
Mair: Oh, gosh. There’s so much work to do, isn’t there?
We’re in such a rapid state of change right now. I think that the majority of people — especially here in Canada, although I know a lot of Americans who feel the same way — support reproductive rights, the right to die and universal health care. It’s the vocal minorities that get in the way of those rights. I think Dan Barker said it best in our film when he talked about the religious political right dying out, knowing they’re dying out, and lashing out at anyone and anything that threatens them. The world is changing. It’s going to continue to change. The one advantage the religious right has is that it has an organized voice. I think we have to build communities of support so that we have an organized voice as well.
The really hopeful thing is that those communities are starting to happen — the Oasis communities and Sunday Assemblies and other humanist and secular groups are starting to grow and they’re becoming more active in addressing social justice issues. So I’m optimistic. There are some really fantastic people out there.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or feelings in conclusion?
Mair: Not that I can think of!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leslea.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jabobsen with the fkirst part of an interview conducted with Allie Jackson, the group’s CEO.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Recently, the Atheist Republic Facebook page was shut down. Why was that? How can Facebook do that without necessarily letting you know or with authorization? Allie Jackson: Isn’t that a good question? We would love to know why. We were shut down, not once but twice, in less than 24 hours without warning. Normally, we know when there is a problem because Facebook will let us know they removed some post for some reason.
This has happened for years. They used to send us a picture letting us know which post was removed. We had a post removed that no one could tell what it was. This has been happening for quite some time now.
We post about once per hour, sometimes more and sometimes less. They say, “We removed this post for violating our terms.” We can’t know which post because they didn’t send a picture. Oftentimes, what they removed is innocent. It didn’t break terms of service. But we’ve learned to live with that.
So, leading up to this ban, they stopped showing us what they were removing from our page. We didn’t get an indication that a post was removed, then we’ve got this notification that we’d been restricted.
Some features had been restricted [Laughing]. It is mind-boggling. We click the notification. It takes us to the page. It is very normal, but then we realized that our posts weren’t reaching people and nobody was able to see our post unless they went to our page.
That went on for a couple of hours. We ended up putting in an appeal, of course. We ended up rallying the community because we saw that the Ex-Muslims of North America got a notification saying this restriction will last for one week and because the post was against the terms of service.
Something that I hadn’t heard before. So, a couple hours before we put in the appeal. It was the next day, but not the full 24 hours. Our page was completely taken down and unpublished. No reasons, again, and no posts were removed, just – boom! – “we’ve unpublished your page.”
It is frustrating because we don’t know what we did wrong. It is the same process. When we have a post removed, we want to improve things. We understand Facebook is a private company. We understand they have a right to run their own company.
It was not illegal, but I feel what they did was unethical. To take a paying customer and then remove the platform from 1.6 million people who want the content that we’re putting out there; that is not a very business-like way of doing things, I think.
It was very frustrating on that level.
Jacobsen: Once you get past 1.5 million, there aren’t that many groups. They are there, but not many. 1.6 million, given all of Facebook, it is relatively small, but given the community, it is relatively large. The fact that it happened for a Facebook group housed, in essence, in Canada is rather remarkable.
Jackson: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: The first time when they took it down, they said you lost some features. Did they specify any at all? Jackson: They didn’t specify anything. It popped up, like a notification if somebody liked a photo or commented on something that you commented on. It popped up in a notification, not explaining what features were removed.
We had to go through and figure it out. There were two: the speak now button and the news feed. People could not leave messages, and no one could get our posts.
Jacobsen: Has Facebook done this to ex-Muslim or ex-anything groups before?
Jackson: Absolutely, the most we hear about are ex-Muslim groups, especially Arab ex-Muslim groups.
Jacobsen: Is this regardless of location, whether Saudi Arabia or America? Jackson: Absolutely. It is so sad too. This is a small group without a platform. They can’t say this is a big problem. We get these people coming to us and saying, “Wow, I had 17,000 people in a group. Facebook removed the group.”
Or another is that Facebook removed the group because we post scientific stuff and have “atheist” in the title. I am on a secret Facebook group with other admins of other groups. Many have had their pages down for six months now, with no reason or warning.
Many of them hadn’t even had a post removed. All of a sudden. Poof! They are gone. It is hard working from our platform and point of view because there are pages that I know – because I follow them [Laughing] – were not violating any terms of service.
If the offense is now a violation of terms of service, then let’s shut down Facebook because everything can be offensive. I look at things as far as terms of service and community standards. Those are two things I have engulfed the knowledge about.
We have a group with many members. It is a big Facebook group. So, we are dedicated. If anybody looks at our rules that we lay out for the group, we are dedicated to prevention of hate speech and make sure that everything is in line there.
On the page, though, things are different. We can control what we post, but not what others post. On a page of 1.6 million, Facebook could easily find them. Every single post we’ve put out has never had anything to do with hate speech.
People want to say hate speech is an opinion. In reality, it is not. If you look at its definition, it talks about inciting violence or hatred toward people or a group of people. We are not setting out to hurt anyone.
We don’t want anyone hurt, even their feelings. We attack ideas, not people. So, it is really difficult when people say, “You’re hateful.” No, we have a platform with anyone free to fight an idea. We don’t ban theists or Muslims, or Christians, or any specific groups. If somebody doesn’t like what we say, maybe, they can educate us. They are free to do that.
Jacobsen: Do you think the equivalent opposite case happens when Muslim groups will state openly that atheists are going to hellfire or some equivalent, and they don’t get taken down – even though that would be about people rather than others such as on Atheist Republic criticizing the authenticity of a text and the validity/soundness of arguments for one particular faith? Jackson: Yes, I think it is outrageously unfair. We have received, over the years, so many death threats. The rainbow Kaaba was probably one of the most controversial things we’ve shared. The whole purpose and point was love should be free for everyone.
Everyone, anywhere should be able to love anyone the way they want. We got so much support from the Muslim community, “Please don’t share my name, but I am gay and Muslim, and I can’t tell anyone my name. Your message gave us a lot of hope.”
It is not like we focus on atheist problems or only atheists. We focus on a lot of problems that stem from religious indoctrination, such as the hatred against the LGBTQ+ community by some people. Most Muslims support the community.
Unfortunately, they face criticism from their own community for doing that, but for me to get back to the hate speech, that happens. We have people who have sent us a man who was tied to a cross with his head cut off and his head laying at his feet. They said, “You’re next.”
We get people saying, “What is your physical address? Do you remember what happened to Charlie Hebdo? You’re next.” I have had someone say, “I am going to chop off your head and rape your neck hole.”
Facebook says, “Thank you for sending this. It doesn’t violate our terms of service or community standards. We can’t do anything, but you can ban them.” Armin and I both got banned once because he posted my picture and said, “Allie was sent to us from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen.”
That got mass reported and we got banned from our accounts for it. I am seeing this. This is just what I am seeing. I am not saying this is backed because I am seeing it. But from my perspective, it seems like there is some sort of bias.
It is very frustrating.
Jacobsen: The particular case you gave with Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, is stating a parody religion’s “deity”. In the other case, it is directed at someone. One is a direct threat to a person. One is to you. Another is directed playfully at an idea. People would seem to be insecure enough to find that threat enough to report en masse. People don’t want to be considered a block: all Christians, all Muslims, and so on. But then they want to take pride in saying, “We are one of the biggest religions, and so on.”
I have heard this. I am sure you have too. But even more, there is a population of over a billion called the religiously unaffiliated, but, maybe, there may need to be a coalition of some form. It is like “herding cats.” I am sure you’ve heard it. Jackson: [Laughing] It is so true. We are tied only by the lack of belief in God. Other than that, an atheist can believe in reincarnation, in ghosts, in Karma. So, when you see different organizations of atheists…
I am a big friend, to me, of an organization called Mythicist Milwaukee. They don’t believe the Biblical Jesus existed. Then you look at people like Bart Ehrman. There was a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Price, both who have different beliefs. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Ehrman completely disagree with each other.
Often, they write back and forth about their disagreement. You have these different groups of atheists that know what needs to be done for social justice around the world. So, it is hard. It is hard to take these people and bring them together. The religious are lucky. They have a book and rules, which says, “All will think this way because it says in the text.” Even they can’t get it right. We have tons of Christians who love the LGBT community, then we have Christians at the Westboro Baptist Church [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing]. Jackson: They have more to tie them together. That’s what I love about the Atheist Republic. Even if we disagree with an idea, we are a volunteer team of 300 people. We have different beliefs on politics. We have different views on many things.
We don’t restrict our page to be about one topic. We don’t just dump on one thing, or take one political side. People get upset when we make jokes about Donald Trump. We make the same jokes about Hillary Clinton.
We joke. We have fun. We have different beliefs. That brings us together more than anything. Atheist Republic puts that out there. Even if we don’t believe in it, we will be a platform for you. That is a mentality for bringing all of us atheists together.
Jacobsen: To your own experience, what made atheism seem obviously true – an argument, a disenchantment with traditional religious structures, a cranky parent, not taking the myths seriously, and so on?
Jackson: I was a strong Christian. I prided myself on being a child of God. I talked about my high school summer vacations. While my friends were partying and drinking, I was reading the Bible. I was reading it for Bible school.
I talked about it with people. I loved God. It was my senior year in high school. Things started clicking with me. I was never really allowed to question things growing up. I lived in a very conservative household. I watched Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, [Laughing] probably more than I’d like to say.
They hated homosexuals. They hated anyone different. It was around that time that I said, “I have a friend at school who is gay. I never even really questioned my own sexuality. I was straight because that’s what the Bible said I was to be.”
I never really questioned anything. But at that moment, I was saying, “I don’t want to hate people.” The second I said that, something clicked. When I left my family, and when I started studying at a Catholic university, I would stay in the library and study the Bible.
I loved being God’s child but it began to be more difficult for me. Social media began to boom. It wasn’t big in high school [Laughing]. I saw friends posting these awful things about Jesus, so I would immediately unfriend them. It hurt.
Once I was honest with those images, I decided I might be hurting because the images hold some truth. Things became harder. I began reading the story of Samson in the library. How Samson gathered 300 foxes, tied their tails together, and marched them into town to destroy.
It was so unreal. In my head, and I am sorry, I said, “This is bullshit.” I immediately got scared. At that moment, I immediately said, “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t do this anymore.”
Jacobsen: I want to dig a little deeper. I think there is an important moment there. Where Samson pulls the foxes into town, and you realize how unreal this is and say, “This is bullshit,” then there was fear, what was the fear? Jackson: Questioning God, questioning God, that I would burn in hell. The days following, it brings me to tears just thinking about it. It was such a draining moment of my life. I prayed to a god I no longer believed in, begging him to give my faith back.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Jackson: I spoke to God on a personal level. I truly thought I felt God in my heart, not understanding that that was my own compassion that I was showing myself. I truly thought that was God loving me, being there for me in my tough times, and I didn’t want to live with the thought of not being God’s child anymore – and losing God.
I was praying to a god I no longer believed in, to give me my faith back, because I was so lonely. After that, I didn’t feel God anymore. It took years to realize I was an atheist after that. I didn’t tell anybody. I didn’t believe anymore. I stopped going to churches – sorry. I am choking up.
Jacobsen: It’s okay. Jackson: I stopped doing things that normal Christian people do. I slowly stopped doing it. Then I had this fight inside me. I feared hell. I knew I was going to hell. I knew somehow the world had corrupted me.
This sounds crazy. Right?
Jacobsen: No, it doesn’t. It is telling me something very deep. Rarely, people lose complete worldviews at once. You’re describing emotional reactions that are still in place, but you’re consciously losing bit-by-bit. So, you lose the belief in God, but still have the belief in prayer – and the efficacy of it.
But when you lose that, you still had the belief in hell. So, the fear was still there. The way you ordered it was a fear I no longer had in God, but also, following that, was a fear of hell. So, I am noticing that bit-by-bit. It is almost like a jigsaw puzzle where you’re removing the pieces rather than an orb that just melts.
That’s not crazy. Jackson: I was then scared when I realized I was an atheist. That, suddenly, I might start doing something bad because I don’t have any morality.
Jacobsen: Go to hell to morality. Jackson: Absolutely. Why do I have compassion? God gave me that. I am going to hell, even though I stopped believing in hell. I couldn’t shake it. It was still there in the back of my mind. We live our lives as Christians.
When I take myself back to the mind frame, we live our lives for the afterlife. This doesn’t matter.
Jacobsen: What was the branch of Christianity? Jackson: Southern Baptist. If everything is for the afterlife, why do anything for this life? It was an amazing transformation. I was a girl who helped other Christians. I volunteered at the church. I was a good girl.
To where I am now, where I help and run a one-on-one support group through Atheist Republic, we help people all around the world. We don’t have the resources unfortunately to pay a lot of money to help them with those needs.
We volunteer our time. We could be at the movies.
Jacobsen: Your Sundays are free now. Jackson: [Laughing] That’s true. There is nothing that drives us to do that as far as a spiritual being is concerned. There is no reward that we will get from him. We know there is no physical reward for it.
We know we will be making the world a better place one person at a time. If we didn’t help someone out of a funk, we could find them resources for a doctor if they didn’t have insurance, or that an ex-Muslim is cared about by someone – right here, right now, let’s cry together.
Tell me everything. For the first time in their lives, in their own country where they can’t tell anyone about their atheism, that changes their world.
Jacobsen: In the back of my mind, when you said, “This is bullshit,” I was thinking about the power of words. Of not only that, but of the spoken word for an individual, either to hear someone else say, “I don’t believe this,” or to say, “This is bullshit,” [Laughing] in more colloquial terms. I feel as though religious authorities, and more religiously authoritarian countries, know this quite deeply. So, they label, as in Saudi Arabia, atheists as terrorists – or ideological threats [Laughing]. I think that one-on-one work is very powerful for a lot of people.
Jackson: That it is. I can’t imagine doing anything else. It is my true passion. It is what I love doing. I couldn’t imagine anything else.
Armin Navabi explains to Scott Jacobsen from Atheist Republic the dangers of moral relativism.
Add caption
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I hear arguments from different people on Islamic countries and people who live in them. Some argue for different standards for different beliefs and groups. If not in an explicit manner, then the implicit understanding in the conversation amounts to different standards for different people. The conversations start with the general question about judgment of people who live in Islamic countries. In these dialogues, the person may respond with a question, “Who are we to judge people living in Islamic countries?”
Armin Navabi: We are all human beings. That is what we all are. Why does care for our fellow human beings have to be dependent on their location? Why does it have to be dependent on where they were born, their race, or how far or how close they are to us? I do not understand the relevance of that. Pain is pain. Happiness is happiness. I believe that it does not matter if somebody is hungry next to you, or if somebody is hungry a thousand kilometers from you. It does not matter if somebody is being oppressed right next to you or if somebody is being oppressed a thousand kilometers from you. That somebody is human. They need your help.
We Are All Connected
The idea of “I can help people who are next to me more than I could help people far away from me” does not exist anymore. We are all connected globally, through the advances in technology, that it is so easy to help other people with little effort and little budget.
Today, you can make a huge difference for people you have never even met or will never even meet. You can make a difference for people, whichever corner of the world they are in now. In fact, you might be able to make more of a difference because you live in a country where you could speak freely.
They Need Your Voice
You live in a country where you could say whatever you want. People living in Islamic countries do not. They do not live in a country where they can speak their minds. That is why you might be able to make a bigger difference in their lives compared to people close to you. They need your voice. Because when they do speak, these people will get prosecuted and go to jail. They lose their freedom. They lose their safety. These are people taken away from their children. There are even people who pay the government for the cost of executing their loved ones.
Arrogance in Freedom
Liberated countries enjoy some or most of these rights: freedom of speech, right to peace, equality, anti-discrimination, men and women are equal, homosexuals should not to be prosecuted for being gay, and for people of the minority to express their views without being punished. The people who are enjoying these rights have no empathy for what the people in Islamic countries are suffering from there. To me, it is arrogant when some people suggest that this is maybe because these are our values but not theirs.
Morally Superior
Because of this, they claim moral superiority for following these values. That people who follow such humanist values are going to enjoy life more, and live a life with more peace and more happiness. Since we are claiming superiority for this, we think we are deserving of these values and other people are not.
Other people might never be able to see that these values are good for them because they weren’t always in the situation where they had these values. Later on, they progressed to adopt these values, but people are denying them on the same grounds. They might say, “We came to these values ourselves. They should do the same thing.” I call bullshit. There is no country, no idea, and no value that has not been influenced by other countries, by other values, by philosophers and thought leaders from different corners of the world. Europe was introduced to its own ancient values through the Arab Empire. If it wasn’t because of the Arab Empire, we would not know how much of those ancient values would have come back from Greek philosophers. They were influenced by foreign countries, foreign philosophers, and foreign thought.
No group of people or country lives in a bubble. Of course, they are going to be influenced by foreign countries. They are going to influence other countries. They are going to be influenced by other countries. There is no way a country could progress in a bubble. They need outside influence as we need outside influence. The world is connected. If that was true a thousand years ago, it is more true today because we are more connected today. If European countries want an enlightenment, because of the influence of foreign countries at that time, are you going to deny foreign influence to these countries today since we are even more connected now?
Moral and Pleasure Matrix
I will say to people who do not agree with these values, to bring on your values and sell your values to these people, but do not deny us the opportunity to come and introduce these values to people that might want them. Compete with us in the market of ideas, compete with us and tell us why your values are better; however, that is not what you are doing. You are telling us, we are not in a position to judge, so we should shut the fuck up. That is the position you are taking. I am saying, if you think our ideas are wrong, bring up better ideas, but do not deny these people the opportunity to choose their ideas. Ideas that we think are better.
If you think we are wrong, introduce them to more ideas, not fewer ideas. That is how you compete with our ideas. That is how you respond to a bad idea. That is how we respond to your shitty backwards barbaric ancient ideas. We do not silence you. We compete with you. If you think our ideas are imperialist, foreign, too liberal, too free, too empty of spiritual guidance, too empty of meaning, too empty of providing purpose to people, then I am sure. If your ideas are better, they are going to do good.
Exploiting Evolution You should bring your ideas to the public and compete with us. Do not deny the people, who might prefer our values, the opportunity to hear us because you think somebody might take advantage of these ideas for their agenda. Because if that is your argument, then we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries. Because it was not that long ago, when the Nazis took advantage of the evolution of science to sell their agenda and to tell people why we need to stop letting some races spread, some races should be superior. The whole genocide of the Jews. All those gas chambers and crimes were committed by the Nazi Regime. They were based on the truth, based on the misuse of an actual true scientific principle, which is evolution.
If you are looking at how people could misuse something, we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries because we have a history. In fact, you should try to suggest a value to me. I could come up with a way that it could be misused. Misuse of Human Rights
In fact, if you are worried about the fact that we are talking about human rights being misused by the military/industrial complex to bring war to these countries, why are you not equally concerned about the Islamic values that have been used, time and time again, in history, for killing, for war, for torturing people, and for denying people’s rights? We have more examples of Islamic values being used to do the same thing. Based on the argument, we should deny Muslims the opportunities to spread their ideology because of the history and examples that came from the misuse of it.
You cannot stop telling the truth because of somebody being able to misuse it. Because if you do that, then you cannot say anything. Everybody should stay home and shut the fuck up.
The only way that you could fight the misuse of good ideas is to expose them as misuse of good ideas. Because if you do not compete bad ideas with better ideas, those bad ideas are more easily used, more easily misused, than good ideas. If your values are better values, then any misuse of it is a misrepresentation and is another inferior value that you should fight for rather than it. When we say these values are superior and you say, “Well, who are you to say?” You could still say that about any claim. I could say, “Who are you to say? Who am I to say?” Let us say your claim is we should not interfere in other people’s countries, who are you to say we should not interfere in other people’s countries?
Challenge Your Ideas
The point of bringing your ideas out there is to challenge them. If you go around the argument and look at the person who is making the argument and you think that they do not deserve to make such argument, then you are making a judgement about the person, whether or not they are deserving to make an argument. Now, you are in that position where we can ask the same from you: who are you to deny this person making the argument?
Another thing is when people say, “Oh, Christianity is the same. It is as bad here. Look at the people. Look at how many police are killing black people or look how Christianity is also barbaric. Ancient ideology that could be as harmful.”
To that, I say, “Fuck you.” I am not talking about those things. I am talking about something else. An example: Imagine if you have a fundraiser for cancer. You are trying to raise money to fund research for cancer. You want to fight cancer, and then people come in and start shouting. They say, “What about AIDS? Why are you not talking about AIDS? AIDS is a disease too. AIDS is also killing people. You guys do not care about AIDS!” What would I do? I would probably kick these people out. AIDS is bad. Yes! However, we are talking about cancer because we are talking about the problems of cancer. That does not mean we are denying that AIDS is also a problem.
However, you are not helping by shifting the discussion to something that this fundraiser is not fighting for now. You are not helping, and fuck you for making everything about you. Because what you are doing is you are taking part in the Oppression Olympics. You think that if the conversation is not about the things that attacks your people or the things that have affected your life, then it is not worth talking about now. If you have been hurt by Christianity or by racism in the US, then when we come and say, “Islam is hurting people,” you are saying, “No, let us pay attention to this.” That makes you self-centered because you cannot stand it when other people are talking about being victims of something else other than what concerns you. You cannot stand people who are bringing awareness to something that you or the people around you are not victims of. If that is the case, then you are selfish and arrogant. However, some people might say this cancer and AIDS example does not make sense because Islam and Christianity have the same root.
Religion As A Whole
This is why we always want to say that we should not talk about Islam. Talk about religion as a whole. Okay, let me add to my example. Let us say we had a fundraiser about pancreatic cancer and then somebody came and said, “Skin cancer is a problem too. Why are you not talking about skin cancer?” Is that close enough for you?
Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on a specific problem, even if it has similarities with other problems. Different problems manifest themselves in different ways. They harm people in different ways. They have different answers.
It makes sense to focus on a certain problem. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at it as a whole. However, it does not make sense when you always try to shift the attention to a different category when we are focusing on another one. It does not make sense because you are not helping. We are having a discussion about a certain topic and all you are doing is coming and saying, “pay attention to the problem that I care about.” That is what you are doing.
Better Than Most
The obsession for a certain issue might be for different reasons. It could be because you were hurt. It might be because you know more about a particular topic. It might be simply because you care more about a certain issue. Who cares? At least, you are talking about a problem, which makes you better than most people.
For example, if somebody is going out there and rescuing dogs, I am not going to tell them, “What the fuck do you have against cats? Why are you not rescuing cats? Are other animals not good enough for you? Do they not deserve saving?”
This person maybe cares about dogs. Maybe, he is passionate about dogs. However, the fact that he is rescuing dogs. He might be doing more than most people. Do you know what you say to somebody who is going out there and rescuing dogs? You say, “Thank you.” That is what you say to that person.
For example, let us say somebody says to me, “Why are you focused on Islam? Why not all religions?” I tell them, “Why are you so focused on other religions? Why not all dogma?” They might say, “Okay, all dogma.”
I am like, “Why are you focusing on all dogma? Why are you not focusing on all bad ideas? Does a bad idea have to be a dogma for you to focus on it?” Then they go, “Okay, all bad ideas.” I am like, “Bad ideas? What about other bad things? Does something have to be an idea for you to attack it? Diseases are not ideas. Why are you focusing on bad ideas?”
“Alright, so let us be more general, bad things are bad. Good things are good. Is that general enough for you? Is that good? How helpful is that? How helpful of a claim that is… bad things are bad?” You cannot get more general than that. General Activism
Some people prefer to look at it more generally. Others might want to look at it more focused in a more specific situation. For example, there is a certain village in the Philippines, where the people need help now. This person wants to specifically focus on this group of people. People who do not have access to water. It is focused. Nobody will go to this person and be like, “Why are you focusing on that specific village?” That is incredibly focused, but I am sure most people will say, “Congratulations, that is good. Thank you for helping these people.”
But when it comes to Islam, many people, atheists especially, say, “Why are you focusing on Islam?” I do not think it is because their problem is that you are being too focused. I think they feel a certain amount of bigotry if you are focused on Islam because they do not say that about any other form of activism if it is focused on anything.
Have you ever heard anybody say that about any other form of activism? It looks ridiculous. Let us say somebody is focusing on the environment in Iran. Nobody comes to him and says, “Why do you not care about the environment in Iraq?” Pushed Back for Bigotry
Every form of activism gets this bigotry pushback. However, this specific claim that you are being too focused is either regarding Islam or nationalism. For example, if Americans are focusing on other countries, they might get accused on why are you not focusing on problems at home.
I know a lot of people who are nationalistic and anti-globalist do not like this. However, I do not understand it. Why do we have to care about a certain group of people because they happened to be born on this side of the border instead of on the other side of the border? Is that good criteria for us to start caring about somebody? Why is that? What makes this so special? With this line in the sand, all of the sudden the person that is born on this side of it matters more?
Western Values
Another thing, I want to address Western values. The name: “Western values.” The reason why it is called Western values is because it first happened in Western countries. The fact that these values were adopted more in Western countries is a historical accident. Because they are named, “Western values,” now, that does not mean that the West should own these values. The West does not own women’s rights. The West does not own human rights. The West does not have a monopoly over not discriminating against gay people. The West does not have a monopoly on secularism. The West does not have ownership over freedom of speech.
The fact people are accusing us of bigotry because we are suggesting that these values should be global and introduced globally, you are being the bigots. You are claiming ownership over some values because you happened to historically come across it — before the rest of the world. You are the people unwilling to share. You think that this is good for you, but it is not good for other people. Why is it not good for other people? What makes them so different from us that it works for you but not for them?
Western Superiority
You are the people claiming superiority. What is it about values that make somebody claim ownership over them? Why can we not introduce these values? Why can we not promote these values? It has been introduced, but we could promote it even more. Why can we not promote them? Could somebody use it to attack these countries? Reality check: somebody is using other values to oppress women.
If we go back to arguments people use when you are talking about Muslims and Islamic ideology, you are not looking at the main threat in the world. You are not looking at the main powers at play, at the destruction and the harm that they cause.
You have to see who is in control and not look at these minority Muslims in our Western countries. You have to make the difference where it matters the most now. Those are the ideas. The values that are being used to oppress people in foreign countries and in their countries by these major superpowers in the West.
I tell them that is a narrow way of looking at it because where I come from Islam is in power. You are underestimating Islam as a major superpower when you think about it that way. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam is going to become the number one main ideology in the world soon.
Islam Colonization
Islam is dominating not lands but minds. Islam is used to rule over people and to oppress people. Islam has been used to colonize people. Do you think white people are the only people that can colonize?
Islam has been used for colonization way before the British discovered what that even means and that it is even an option. It is okay if it happens voluntarily. If people are adopting other people’s cultures or ideas or values voluntarily, that is not colonizing them. We are asking for these other values and ideas to be heard and considered rather than suppressed or silenced.
We asking for a seat at the table, at every table. I am not talking about a seat at a table talking about humanism and secularism in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Canada, or in France. I am talking about a seat at a table in Iran, in Bangladesh, in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Pakistan.
We demand a seat at a table. We are going to get it. if you think that that is us imposing our values on other people, fuck you. Because you are enjoying the benefits of these values, somebody at some point in your history was told that these values are not for your country. They did not stay silent. They sacrificed their lives. They sacrificed their safety. They sacrificed their comfort for you to enjoy that today. People are doing these things in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in Bangladesh. They are suffering for it.
Moral Cowardice
You are a moral coward for thinking that it is morally wrong for us to voice our feelings on the killing of secular bloggers in Bangladesh. Do you think it is not right for us to judge? Do you think you are not in a position to judge? To judge whether women having less inheritance rights in government, as a witness in court, on what they wear, where they go, what jobs they get, who they talk to, do you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment on that? That makes you a moral coward.
But what is moral or not? If you are making that judgement based on how different sets of actions influence people’s well-being, then there is always a right answer and a wrong answer. There are many good answers and many bad answers. It does not take a genius to see that hanging gay people is not good for the well-being of the society. If you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment for other countries, I want you to tell me what you would say to the person that is about to be hanged because they are gay.
Go ahead and tell that to that person right before they are being hanged, say, “This is not that bad. In my country it is bad, but here, this is your culture, so shame on you for being gay. If you were in the United Kingdom, I would be marching for gay pride and being gay and proud, but here it is a different country. So, fuck you, fuck your gay ass, you deserve being hanged here.” For The People in Islamic Countries
All the people who are in jail in Iran or Saudi Arabia; all the bloggers who died trying to spread secularism and humanism; all the people in Malaysia who after the government came out and said that they need to hunt down atheists; on behalf of those people, all the people that were burned or tortured for accusations of desecrating the Quran in Pakistan; on behalf of all those people, I want to say, “Fuck you to whoever says that it is their culture and who are we to judge and ask, ‘What’s right for them?’” On behalf of every woman that suffered from Islam; on behalf of every homosexual person that suffered in Islam; and on behalf of anybody that dares speak against Islam and paid the consequences for it, I want to say, “Fuck you” to whoever says, “Who are we to judge?”
Enlightenment for All
The Western countries went through the Enlightenment. Now we want this for other countries as well. We want the same enlightenment values. We want to fight for those values. If you are arrogant enough to want to deny the rest of us the same process, if you are not going to help, then stay out of our way. It is interesting a lot of people come and tell me, “Armin, why are you saying these things? That is our country. It has nothing to do with our country. That is Iran.” I almost, almost want to say, “Mother fuckers, I am from Iran.” However, I do not think that is even relevant because I think you should not need to be from there for you to care about them.
Situation in Yemen
Who do I care more about right now than even the people in Iran? I care more about the people in Yemen. If I could speak Arabic, I would have been tweeting more about the situation that is happening in Yemen because they are suffering more than the people in Iran. The fact that you think we have to be from there to care about them makes no sense to me. However, if you think that, and if you do not want to be part of the solution, and if you do not want to lend a voice to people that need you to lend them a voice, the people that are voiceless. The people that cannot speak for themselves.
If you are not going to use your platform to help them, then stay out of our way because we are going to keep doing that. We are going to keep doing that. It does not matter how many times you call us a bigot. We are going to keep fighting for those people.
If you think they need to do it themselves, then fuck you again because it would be much faster and much easier if we could help them out. Because we enjoy the freedom of speech here. We enjoy some security. We could bring more attention to their problems, to their suffering. We could help. We could help. They need our help. They are asking for our help. For you to deny that to them because you think they do not deserve it, it is selfish. It is selfish to judge your life by a different standard than what you are judging their lives by.
So, who are we to judge how people in Islamic countries live? To that I say, “That is the wrong question. The right question is, “Who do you have to be to remain silent?” The answer to that is, “You have to be a monster.” You have to be a monster to have seen such crimes being done against your fellow human beings and judge it by a different standard than what you would have done if it was happening in your own backyard.
MN: I became an activist as a result of my own life experiences after an Islamic regime took power in Iran. We fled the country. One of the first ways in which I got politically involved was in doing refugee rights work. My family and so many we knew had become refugees and it was a way of dealing with the trauma of losing everything and starting all over again – somewhere completely new – and at times unwelcoming.
It followed too, that I would be active against theocracy and religious rules, and for people’s rights. The best way you can fight repression is to refuse and resist. I didn’t set out to be an activist; in many ways I was forced into it. I had no choice but to fight back in the best way I knew how. Also when you are faced with such inhumanity – like the Islamic regime of Iran – the best fight back has to be fundamentally human.
SDJ: Was there support from parents, siblings, or others for you?
MN: My family has always been supportive of me. That’s why it has been easy for me to be an activist. Also, my partner is an activist. I’ve really always had a lot of support.
I can’t imagine people who not only don’t have the support of their families, but are being beaten and abused because of their beliefs. I think it makes it so much more difficult. Doesn’t it? It still astonishes me people like that can still be active and speak out.
I have met a lot of very vocal women. Many of them say they’ve had supportive parents and fathers. I think that’s key when you’re an activist. Obviously, you can be vocal without family support, but it helps a great deal.
SDJ: Speaking of human rights as well as women rights, which are somewhat separated but definitely overlap, do you note that more of the rights violations are women’s in general?
MN: Obviously, I think rights are violated across the board, but because women are seen to be more vulnerable, they are seen to be the property of the community, the society, the family’s honor, the society’s national honour, it makes it easier to target them. And often the abuse is legitimised in ways that other abuses aren’t.
As a result, violence against women is more acceptable in many ways. In that sense, one of the greatest violations of human rights is in the area of women’s rights.
SDJ: Some of the more tragic and dramatic examples are violations of women’s bodies through things such as tens of millions of women having female genital mutilation, infibulation, clitoridectomy, and so on, against their will, even as girls. Does that seem, along with others, more religiously motivated or not?
MN: I think there are obviously non-religious motivations for those violations, but very often religion also justifies and legitimises it, and gives it divine sanction in ways that other justifications don’t – which makes it all the more dangerous.
SDJ: You are working on a new film. What is the content and purpose of that film?
MN: The film is on Islam’s non-believers. It’s been made by Deeyah Khan, who is an award-winning film maker. Her previous films have been about honor killing as well as Jihadis.
And this one is about Islam’s non-believers. It looks at the situation of young people, particularly in Britain, who are facing discrimination and abuse because they’ve decided to be atheists. Often, including from their families and the larger communities that they live in. The film also links to the international situation.
It also shows the ex-Muslim resistance as an international movement and how it too is an important way of pushing back the Islamists by opening up the space to question and debate, and criticise religion, even to renounce religion. The ability to do it despite the risks involved.
SDJ: The American Massachusetts Institute of Technology trained and Tufts University based philosopher and cognitive scientist professor, Daniel Dennett, did something similar to that. He looked into pastors, ministers, and preachers who had lost their faith and continued to preach. There’s a decent amount who’ve lost their faith and continued to preach. I haven’t seen the precise results, but this seems like a similar case. A possibly relatively common phenomena of people putting on the ‘face’ such as the engaging in practices and wearing the clothing in public, but not holding the beliefs sincerely or simply not believing. Do you know of the numbers of non-believers in Islam, but are putting on that face – so to speak?
MN: Yea, also, there are 13 countries that execute apostates and atheists. There’s also a huge amount of threats and intimidation. The numbers are much larger than we can imagine because of the many risks involved. Social media and the internet are doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.
So, it is opening the way to challenge it in a way that hasn’t been possible because of the risks that are involved. My opinion is its a tsunami of millions. It really is the case that there are atheists in every family, in every home, in every neighbourhood, in every country.
There are many of them. We can see it now via social media. What we see, though, is still the tip of the iceberg. We have many members living in Britain, which is a relatively safe place to live. There are no apostasy rules, but people continue to wear the veil, go to mosque, and continue to say they’re Muslims when they are atheists.
I think if the pressure of the Islamist movement is removed, if that movement is pushed back in the way political Christianity was pushed back by an Enlightenment, the world will be surprised by the sheer number of non-believers. I think even we will be surprised by it.
SDJ: On the fringe of that sector of people, that sub-population within the community will be those that simply had over time their fundamentalist beliefs softened and liberalised quite a bit. Do you think that would be a much larger population – that sector would then move into non-believing as well?
MN: Definitely, I think that is the case. I mean, of course, no community or society is homogenous. There are so many differences of opinion. The problem is we live in an era where communities are homogenised.
Very often, those in power are seen to be the representatives of those communities. In the so-called Muslim community, Islamists are seen as the authentic Muslims and representatives. I think many people are forced to keep up appearances, even if they don’t believe.
Time will reveal all, but already we’re seeing the extent of it. If anyone is interested in seeing it, is interested in accepting that there’s diversity and dissent in what is considered a homogenous group, it is very easy to see.
And it is on the increase. A convert was telling me that the Islamists always talk about how many people are converting into Islam, but we never hear about many of those converts who then decide to leave Islam and to become atheists.
We hear it is the fastest growing religion. We never hear about all of those people running for their lives in the opposite direction.
(Laugh)
Things are skewed in the favour of religion because religion is privileged anyway. No matter what society you live in. But when it is imposed, very often by brute force, by the Islamist movement, the numbers can never really be revealed.
But you can get a really good sense of it. When we started #ExMuslimBecause, we were expecting to have a couple of hundred people respond. We even thought, “Let’s do it a few weeks in advance of December 10th, International Human Rights Day, so, we can build up on it and gather a few hundred statements.”
It went viral in 24 hours. There were over 120,000 tweets from 65 different countries. Again, that is still the tip of the iceberg, really.
SDJ: At this point in time, how do you self-identify in terms of irreligious/religious beliefs as well as socio-political beliefs?
MN: I have a big problem with identity politics. I think it’s regressive as it tries to pigeonhole people into groups of constructed identities. It refuses to acknowledge that people are multifaceted. They have so many different characteristics that define them or they define themselves with.
For me, even the whole ex-Muslim movement is not about identity politics, I know it is for some people, but it is about a political challenge to the Islamist movement, to discrimination and violence against apostates, and it is one way of highlighting that.
It also challenges the view that the “Muslim community” is a homogenous community. If you have ex-Muslims, millions of people who don’t want to be considered Muslim anymore, it challenges multiculturalism as a social policy. I personally have political positions and ideals, which, for me, mark who I stand with irrespective of background or belief.
I am a secularist, for example. I will stand with Muslims and ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims, in support of secularism. I might be an atheist, but I don’t necessarily agree with all atheists on all issues. I am pro-refugee rights and against profiling of Muslims, for example.
I am old-fashioned in the sense that I think we need to build solidarity around political ideals, rather than around ridiculous limiting identities, which narrow the allies we can have and put us amongst those who aren’t necessarily our allies because they fit within a narrow identity.
Unfortunately, this is old-fashioned, but that’s how political organising has always been done. It has been done irrespective of one’s background, beliefs, and identity around specific political ideals.
I think that’s why we’re in the mess we are in today because we are not able to see our allies and our enemies given the bogus identity politics.
SDJ: I want to shift the conversation to some of the things you mentioned at the beginning about refugees. In the early 21st century, we have a singular tragedy with the Syrian refugee crisis. How do you think countries in Europe are managing and handling refugees as well as the crisis at large?
MN: For me, the refugee issue is a human rights issue – in the same way that I don’t think you should stop people using a hospital because they are undocumented and an EU citizen rather than a British born citizen or exclude people based on age, sex, race, or belief, I don’t think you should stop people from gaining protection.
It doesn’t matter where you fled from and where you seek refuge, you must be granted protection. It’s a basic human right.
People who have never had to worry about getting visas or fleeing for their lives might find it hard to understand the desperation – to have to leave everything you know – the language, the society, your work, your family, your loved ones, sometimes even sending your children on their own (unaccompanied minors) because you have no other hope of saving them. You send them off on this perilous journey and don’t even know if they will make it alive.
From my perspective, we should do everything and anything we can to help people. In the same way, I think everyone who needs healthcare should have it. Everyone who needs housing should have it. I don’t understand why we should have homeless people. I don’t understand why there are children who go to bed hungry in this country. I also don’t understand why refugees shouldn’t be given protection and safety.
I know of course it is because profit is more important than human need, and differences amongst us are more deemed more important than our common humanity but I don’t see why it should be that way.
Also, rights are not contingent on whether you like or agree with those demanding it. Sometimes the refugee issue is muddled up because people want to run an inquisition before deciding whether someone is eligible for this right. My perspective is that even if a person’s views are disgusting and vile, they still have human rights. You can’t stop people from accessing a GP because you don’t like their beliefs, so why do you think you can do it when it comes to those trying to save their lives and fleeing wars and persecution? Also beliefs are not set in stone. They change all the time.
People have a right to an education. They have a right to food. They have a right to healthcare. I would also say they have a right to asylum. I know we’re living in a time when this is unfashionable to say. With Brexit, so many hate anyone who doesn’t look like them. They want everybody out. Even if they’re doctors who are saving your life, they are still not good enough, not white enough, or what have you.
I think this boils down to a very fundamental issue. Rights are for everyone not just your pals. And there is more that hold us together than separate us if only we could see beyond the propaganda.
SDJ: We are seeing some concerns from many people being raised both in North America, Europe, and elsewhere with, the phrase being used is, “right wing nationalism,” which can sometimes be seen as ethnic nationalism in a way. What do you think is the state of that at this point in time? What are the possible major concerns associated with that?
MN: I think this is what happens when identity politics rules.
Identity politics divides and separates people so that they can no longer see their commonalities across these false borders. It’s not just that minorities love to live in ghettos and be humiliated day-in and day-out. This ghettoization is part and parcel of government policies of multiculturalism and cultural relativism. It means that governments can manage their minorities on the cheap by outsourcing citizens to self-appointed community “leaders” and Sharia courts, Islamic schools and so on.
When identity politics is supreme, it makes it possible for white identity politics to be portrayed as a legitimate option.
It surprises me how many people justify and legitimise what is fundamentally white identity politics, white supremacist politics, because the fascists and bigots happen to be critical of Islam. Look, the Islamists are also critical of US militarism but that doesn’t mean I should be siding with them. You can oppose both. This is a trap, though, the so-called “Regressive Left” fall into. But so do those who use the term “Regressive Left” in every other sentence but consider it a “smear” to call out those feeding into the far-Right narrative. Like the atheists and secularists who fall into the trap of defending Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer because they have “some legitimate views.” Well, I’m sure if you sit down and have a chat with al-Baghdadi, he will have “some legitimate views.” Assad or Khamenei might too; they might think that roads should be paved.
But that’s not a reason to ally with them or to justify their politics. I think this is a huge problem. You have people saying, “Well, the Far Right is dealing with the Islamists, therefore, let’s deal with them with kid gloves.” I think that’s a mistake. If you look at them (I always get shit for saying this but people don’t understand what I’m saying) fundamentally they are similar to the Islamists. Islamism is a far-Right movement.
Of course, I’m not saying Tommy Robinson decapitates people, but movements can be fundamentally similar yet based on the amount of power or access to power they have, they might not necessarily be able to wreck the same havoc as one that has state power and backing.
Fundamentally, though, their politics is one of hate, placing collective blame, regression. It’s unfortunate that so many people who consider themselves freethinkers would side with them.
SDJ: You mentioned Sharia courts as well as Islamic schools. I know this is a bit of an issue in the United Kingdom. For instance, private religious schools for youngsters, for kids. Kids are told things that at times are outright wrong, especially even facts and fundamental theories, principles, and laws about the natural world. For instance, creationism over evolutionary theory and so on. What are your own personal concerns with some of these institutions and the way they being implemented within the United Kingdom?
MN: I think “faith schools” is an oxymoron. Schools and faith don’t go together. Unless, you’re talking about indoctrination. I know there are some Church of England schools that are not indoctrinating the way Islamic schools are. They used to do it and still they promote ideas that are antithetical to free thinking and education. I think, in a sense, the educational system is one of the only ways in which we can protect children from their families.
It is meant to be a way in which the playing field is levelled for all kids irrespective of background. You’re rich. You’re poor. Your family beats you. Your family tries to veil you. Schools should be a place where you’re safeguarded.
You get to hear different ideas. You get the protection you might not get at home. You get to be equal to other kids. Faith schools are antithetical to this. If you question, you are punished. If you raise dissent or you don’t agree, or you ask how certain religious edicts could possibly be true, you’re penalised for it.
Education should promote and encourage questioning, inquiry, and free thought. It makes no sense to have religious schools. It’s a prescription for disaster. We’re faced with that disaster today. I can’t understand how it’s ever seen to be good idea.
Historically religion was in charge of education; faith schools are a remnant of the time when religion played a central role in the state and society. And of course even today, religion holds a privileged place in society. The British government, for example, is not a secular state by any means. This is a state in which the Church of England has real power. They’ve got bishops in the House of Lords. The Queen is the head of the church. You’ve got prayers in Parliament.
When speaking about faith schools (even the term seems innocuous, though it’s so sinister), it is not enough to address non-discrimination in admission policies or hiring practices but about why it is bad for our children. Fundamentally, there shouldn’t be any faith schools whatsoever, whether it’s stated funded or private.
SDJ: What about Sharia courts existing alongside mainstream court systems?
MN: I can’t understand that either. If you look at Sharia courts in Britain, they are dealing only in family matters, e.g. divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and so on and so forth. Family matters are not trivial matters as it’s often portrayed.
They are not matters of the community. They are human rights issues. In many countries, where Sharia rules apply, this is one of the main areas of fight back by women’s rights campaigners because of the huge amounts of discrimination against women.
For it to be sold to us here as a choice and a right is like selling FGM as a choice and right. The courts hold women’s testimony to be half that of a man’s. Women don’t have unilateral right to divorce. Men do.
The rules are discriminatory and legitimise violence against women. For example, you’ve got one Sharia judge saying that there’s no such thing as marital rape because women should expect to have sex within marriage. And that calling it rape is the act of aggression and not the actual rape. Or they have said if only we’ve had one amputation or stoning in Britain, there would be fewer thieves and less adultery, look how great Saudi Arabia is. These are the judges making rulings in these courts and making decisions on women’s lives. They’ve been recorded saying, “You’ve been beaten by your husband. Have you asked why he’s beating you? Is it because of your cooking? Is it because of you going out with your friends?”
It is outrageous. It is a scandal that they should be allowed. I think one of the things we’re seeing is not only are the rules discriminatory, but the process itself is tantamount to abuse. That is the argument women’s rights groups are making. No matter what a woman’s background, a man’s background, or a child’s background, they are citizens first and foremost. They have rights. To relegate minority women to kangaroo courts, that are violating their rights should be considered a human rights scandal.
SDJ: In international studies done by UN organs, or bodies, one of the major, probably the best, ways of improving the wellbeing and livelihood of an entire society, from economics to child and maternal mortality rates (reduction) in addition to increasing access and achievements in education, is under the guise of the empowerment of women. When individuals such as others and yourself are campaigning and fighting for women’s rights, and looking for ways, politically and otherwise, to empower women, it is actually improving the lives, on average, of everyone in the region or the society. What do you think should be or is the best means through which to implement women’s rights in cases that are very difficult? Where women have less of a vote or no vote, they have a lot of pressure not to speak up for their own rights.
MN: I think one of the key ways, of course, is defending secularism. One of the problems is that secularism has become a dirty word. We hear how secular extremists are compared with religious extremists. I’m sorry. No. There’s absolutely no comparison.
The French government saying there should be no conspicuous religious symbols in schools is actually a protection of school children. Why should a child be veiled because their parents are Muslims?
Don’t we agree that children have the right to decide their political leaning and positions when they reach of age, why not also their beliefs? Why is it okay for religion to be imposed?
In that sense, compare that with acid being thrown in your face for going to school, compare that with compulsory veiling from the age of puberty, compare that with gender segregation, there’s absolutely no comparison between what a secular state wants and what a theocracy wants.
We should unashamedly, unconditionally promote secularism. It is one the main preconditions for women’s empowerment and rights. I think particularly when religion has any say in the state or law it is detrimental to women’s rights.
That is one precondition. Equality before the law is key, but equality on a social and economic level are also key. That comes down to a system that puts profit before human need and human welfare. Religion is useful for that system as well.
It helps to keep women down.
SDJ: Who are some personal heroes for you?
MN: My parents are my personal heroes because the more I actually see how many young people have been abused and destroyed by their parents, it does make me realise how lucky I am to have the father that I have and my mum as well.
Also, the person who most has affected the way I think is the Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat. Unfortunately, he died at 51, but his politics which centred on the human being has influenced my politics and the politics of many from Iran, the region, and Diaspora.
SDJ: Do you have any recommended novels or more academic writings for people with an interest in or leaning in getting involved in these issues?
MN: There is Mansoor Hekmat’s Collected Works of which there is one translated into English. I would recommend that to anyone who wants to know more about Iranian politics but also about how to address everything from Islam, Islamism, veiling, secularism from a fundamentally human and Left perspective. Anything written by Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas is a great read. There are two interviews with her on the veil and gender segregation, which are brilliant. I’d recommend reading Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis for a view of the Iranian revolution (which was not Islamic) and its expropriation by the Islamist movement; Mona Eltahawy’s Headscarves and Hymens on the veil as well as Karima Bennoune’s You Fatwa Does Not Apply Here on people’s resistance against Islamism. Elham Manea’s Women and Sharia Law is also a really good book on legal pluralism in the UK.
SDJ: For getting in contact with you, people can go to your Twitter and website.
MN: I have a really good website now thanks to a really wonderful volunteer. My website was hideous before. It was embarrassing to refer people to it. It is http://www.maryamnamazie.com. Via the website, people can read things I’ve written, see videos, and media coverage.
Also, there’s a TV program that is broadcast in Iran, which I do weekly with a co-host of mine. It is called Bread and Roses. It is Persian and English. It uses illegal satellite dishes to get into Iran. Many people have satellite dishes in Iran.
It just deals with free thinking, taboo breaking issues. There’s always an interview. We’ve interviewed some of the greats as well as people who should be considered great by all free thinkers, but aren’t as well known, unfortunately.
One of the things the program shows is that there’s so many atheists, secularists, and free thinkers in the so-called Muslim world. I mean, it is important to see them, recognise them, because once we do it breaks this whole idea that dissent and free thought are Western concepts, which is nonsense.
That, in fact, there are lots of people fighting for the very same issues that people fight for here it home in Britain.
SDJ: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion about the things we’ve discussed?
MN: Sometimes, when we’re having these discussions, people only see homogenous groups; they make decisions based on group identity. But group identity is very often imposed. It fails to recognise that there are so many individuals within those groups who are individuals, courageous and are resisting in many different ways – often at great risk to themselves.
If we can start seeing each other as people and recognising that there is a lot more which brings us together than separates us, I think we would have a real chance of pushing the Islamist and far-Right back.
One of the reasons that the Islamists are so violent is because they see this immense dissent. Unfortunately, it is not recognised in the West because it is either Islamophobic to criticise or you’ve got the Far-Right trying to hijack the criticism in order to scapegoat and vilify Muslims and migrants and push forward their own white identity politics.
It is important for us to go back to basics of universal rights, citizenship, secularism, and join hands together around political ideals and not identities. It is this united solidarity as human beings that has helped us overcome inhumanity in the past and can also help us today.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jacobsen interviews Armin Navabi, Founder of Atheist Republic.
I recently spoke with Armin Navabi, a former Muslim from Iran and the founder of Atheist Republic, an organization with millions of followers worldwide and best-selling author of Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God. We talk about his opinion on the topic Islam versus Nazism, the reason why both can’t be compared, and his message to Muslims.
Scott: Why can’t people compare Islam and Nazism, according to them, and why do you think they’re wrong?
Armin: Their argument is at a time when you have the rise of the alt-right in the West, when people are discriminating against Muslims, when people who look like Muslims are being targeted and harassed in the streets. Comparing Islam to Nazism is not helpful and fueling hate. It’s helping more people demonize Muslims.
Scott: In my opinion, empowering the wrong people is a bad idea, such as the ethnic nationalists and the people that are neo-fascists. Islam is not people but a set of ideas — or more precisely a set of ideas plus suggested practices in which people practice in certain degrees and believed in certain degrees. What I think is you can make a comparison if you’re talking about ideas plus suggested practices in a similar way National Socialism or Nazism does have a set of ideas and likely suggested practices.
I suspect that the inclination behind a lot of people are saying is looking at not only a set of ideas as neutral but a set of ideas as bad and then making comparison as both ideas are bad. You can’t compare two ideas that are bad.
When people want to protect those who believe Islam but not those who believe in Nazism, they don’t want to make a comparison in what they want to protect and in what they consider a bad set of ideas, ordinary Muslims and Nazis respectively. However, if you do look at the ideologies and suggested practices, you can make comparisons.
The question that follows from that comparison is, “What is the judgment? What is the ultimate value of either particular claims and the ideologies at large”?
For Armin, the judgment is already there when you compare Islam and Nazism because when you compare two things, you are suggesting that they are the same.
Armin: My response to that is something that would make them hate me more, which is [that] I don’t think Islam is as bad as Nazism. I think Islam is worse than Nazism. They think, “Okay great job, Armin, you just gave the best narrative to the alt-right and white supremacists. You just said that Muslims are worse than Nazis”. I never mentioned Muslims, never mentioned Nazis. I said Islam. You should know that as this is coming from people who criticize Islam and they say we’re criticizing Islam, not Muslims. And when I say Islam is worse than Nazism, they’re suggesting I’m demonizing Muslims, which I’m not. They will say “you’re simplifying it”. To that I respond, You’re only listening to my conclusion instead of my entire argument.
Scott: How could you say Islam is worse than Nazism?
Armin: First of all they tell me “you can’t even compare them since they’re apples and oranges. They’re not in the same category.” To that I respond, they’re both ideologies. When I compare Christianity with Islam, nobody says anything. When I compare Communism with Nazism, nobody says anything. But when I compare Islam with Nazism, everybody loses their mind.
To be fair, I think most Nazis are way worse than most Muslims. Most Muslims are great people. And this is the problem with Islam. The problem with Islam is that it does better job taking advantage of good people to sell its evil. Nazism doesn’t have the sugarcoating required for you to take advantage of enough good people for it to spread enough.
Religions like Islam and Christianity are destructive, but they also come with these sweet messages like “Love thy neighbor”, “Take care of the poor”, “Be kind to your parents”, “Take care of the elderly”. Stuff that people already did and would have done without religion.
In fact, these simplistic morality messages within these religions were already discussed in way more advanced and nuanced way by ancient philosophers thousands of years ago before the Bible and the Quran.
So it wasn’t their invention and people would have come to this conclusion because people in general are nice. On average, people are more sympathetic to their other fellow human beings. But the Bible and Quran take the credit for this. And by taking credit for it they have an easier job to spread.
If you have an ideology talking about how you are the superior race and how Jews are evil and how everybody else is disgusting, if that’s your main message, it’s really hard for you to sell this and spread it because you have to rely on certain kind of people to spread this.
For example:
If I have a poison pill that tastes like shit and kills you right away, it’s really hard to spread this poison. But if I have a poison pill that is sugar coated and doesn’t kill you right away, then it’s easier for me to start selling this poison and spread it far and wide.
I think that’s the genius of Christianity and Islam. It’s not genius by design; it’s genius because these are memes that survive, just like we have the natural selection for genes. It’s the ideologies that can survive longer spread farther and infect more people.
Scott: How can you say that Islam is even close to what Nazis did?
Armin: Granted, Nazism is way more harmful per year in power. By harmful I mean has more victims. Per year in power, Nazism is way more harmful. But, Nazism cannot survive for long in power. It was in power as a government only in less than one generation. It’s not fully defeated but how many Nazi regimes do we have right now? Zero. How many Islamic regimes do we have right now? More than zero. Islamic regimes last longer. They had victims for the past 1400 years and still have victims today.
People tell me, “How can you say this right after what happened in Charlottesville? You have to adjust what you’re saying and take the political climate into consideration and adjust accordingly for you not to fuel hate.”
And I tell these people, “You’re being very selfish because you’re only looking at the political climate around where you live.”
That woman dying in Charlottesville was an absolute tragedy, but you have to understand while that one person died in the hands of Nazis, there are hundreds of people dying in Yemen because of the religiously-fueled Sunni-Shia-divided Yemen.
I hate Islam because I care about its victims which are mostly Muslims. Being anti-Islam is being pro-Muslim because the main victims of Islam are Muslims. This is not anti-Muslim hate. In fact, you cannot be anything but anti-Islam if you care about Muslims.
If you don’t stand against Islam you’re abandoning Muslim women, Muslim homosexuals, Shia Muslims under Suni regimes, Sunni Muslims under Shia regimes, Baha’i Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Ismaili Muslims etc. Not enough people talk about Yemen because it doesn’t serve the Muslims narrative because these are Muslims killing Muslims. It doesn’t serve U.S. narrative because U.S. gets a shitload of money selling weapons. This is a war crime.
You think we’re being islamophobic? Saudi Arabia is bombing mosques in Yemen. How many people are dying by the hands of Nazis today? They ask me, “what’s the point of comparing Islam to Nazism?” The point is to show people’s priorities. Because people don’t care about their fellow human beings. People care about just what’s happening in their own backyard.
Consider this: which one is worse? The atomic bomb or the Kalashnikov?
Scott: Probably Kalashnikov in the hands of people over a long time.
Armin: Number of people who died by the Kalashnikov is way more than the atomic bomb.
People are more afraid of plane crashes than car accidents. Even though car accidents have way more victims. It’s the same with Nazism and Islam. Nazim, when it came to power, managed to destroy many lives in a short amount of time. But If you look at the larger impact of Islam, it should scare us more.
The leftists accuse us of being Islamophobic and we’re trying to tell them that no, we are criticizing ideas not people. My suggestion is forget the leftists, because what’s the point of criticizing Islam? A lot of people who criticizes Islam, they’re trying to warn the West. But Islam is coming and you can’t stop it. Unless you actually talk to Muslims. And more importantly, what you’re afraid might one day happen to your Western country, is already a reality for many Islamic countries. We need to stop playing defense. We need to reach out to Muslims in Islamic countries.
The best way to fight Islam is to reach out to Muslims. And the best way to reach out to Muslims is to befriend Muslims. Trying to convince Westerners and non-Muslim Westerners that are afraid, that’s not going to stop anything because this is an ideology and it will continue spreading unless you talk to the people that believe it.
In fact, the more people see Muslims themselves as the threat, the more people will victimize Muslims. The more you victimize Muslims, the more it helps Islam to grow. Religion feeds on being the victim. The only way to stop Islam is try to reach out to people. You can’t stop it by force. You have to actually try to convince people out of it. That’s the only way you can fight Islam.
The people we need to warm [about] Islam are Muslims. To be able to talk to Muslims [about] how bad Islam [is], we have to try to convince them that us being against Islam is not us being against Muslims. That’s a very hard thing to do but not as hard as most people think.
The reason why it’s very difficult is because most Muslims see Islam as part of their identity. But I think Muslims are much more than just Muslims just like an atheist is way more than just an atheist and a Christian is way more than just a Christian.
As an atheist, I’m a husband, I’m a humanist, feminist, Game of Thrones fan. I think every Muslim is more than just a Muslim. But we have to acknowledge that many Muslims see Islam as a major part of their identity. Our attack on Islam is not intended as a personal attack. Even when they see it a personal attack. We should invite them to take our intentions into consideration when they’re judging us. This is very important for Muslims because we are all looking for allies.
I tell Muslims that they might find things we’re saying offensive. But it’s better to be offended than to be discriminated against. We will challenge your ideas, but we will stand with you against those who challenge your rights. We will fight your ideas but we will defend your rights.
So you have to see us as allies because you need allies. We need you as our allies because the bigots are not just your enemies, they’re our enemies as well.
You also have to see that the left is not helping you. Not all of them but many people in the left that are saying “Don’t say these things”, “these are offensive”, “you’re attacking Muslims.” You must understand that they are the ones being bigots because they’re suggesting that you can’t take criticism. That you are like children who need protection from these Westerners. You can’t handle criticism of your ideas.
They don’t react to us when we criticize Christianity, only Islam. So you have to see that it’s a kind of bigotry because they’re suggesting that maybe Christians are mature enough for us to disagree with them. You must fight that.
What I’m waiting for is the day that some Muslims show the world that they are tolerant, that they’re not sensitive little “snowflakes” by opening their mosque to ex-Muslims speakers. Imagine if your mosque was the first mosque that invites an ex-Muslim speaker. Be that first mosque. Show the world that you can handle criticism.
My main point is we need to reach out to Muslims instead of the left. If we try to challenge Islam, Muslims should be our target.
It might feel like a personal attack but it’s not our intention.
I usually ask Muslims if they disagree with Christianity and the answer is always “yes”. Are you a Christianophobe or anti-Christian? Do you hate Christians? And they usually say “no”.
That’s just a very simple example to show why disagreeing on an ideology is not the same as hating them because they do it themselves. Every Muslim disagrees with Christianity but most Muslims won’t say they hate Christians or they’re anti-Christian.
Sometimes I hear some Muslims say it’s okay to criticize Islam but just don’t ridicule it. First of all, we must be able to ridicule what we want but whether that’s productive or not, I would tell you that I know a lot of Muslims that came to our page because they found something offensive and they stayed on our page, the Atheist Republic page, long enough for them to eventually doubt their beliefs. It was the offensive things that attracted them until they eventually left Islam.
Second, when we ridicule Islam, we’re not coming to a mosque and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going to a Muslim page and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going into your living room and telling you that your god is fake.
We are doing this on atheist pages, atheist websites, atheist twitter accounts. So if you’re seeing these contents you don’t like, you either don’t know how to block people that you don’t like or you’re actively looking for it. If it’s the first one, I suggest a search on YouTube on how to block a page. It’s either one of those things or if you’re curious, then you can’t tell us to stop because you’re the one on our platform.
If I were to defend mocking Islam when I’m talking to a Muslim, I tell them this:
“When I was a Muslim we used to make fun of other religions. Like I ask a Muslim, “Don’t you find it ridiculous that god could have a son?”
Every religion makes fun of other religions. If it’s okay for Muslims to make fun, then it’s okay for atheists to make fun of Islam.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Armin.
Gordon Guyatt holds a joint medical appointment and is a Professor of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact at McMaster University’s Faculty of Health Sciences. He is a distinguished member of the Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre and the Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at McMaster. Professor Guyatt specializes in evidence-based medicine, developing and applying rigorous research methodologies to enhance healthcare practices and policies. His influential work ensures that clinical decisions are supported by the best available scientific evidence, improving patient outcomes and public health. In addition to leading cutting-edge research initiatives, Professor Guyatt is dedicated to mentoring students and professionals, fostering the next generation of health scientists. His commitment bridges the gap between scientific research and practical healthcare solutions, driving innovation and excellence in the health sciences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The last time we talked was probably–I don’t know–3 or 4 years ago. I believe the lasttouchpoint for us was the red meat study. You were critiquing some general dietary health recommendations. The red meat study raised questions about the degree of risk that can be reasonably proposed to people and how much personal preferences and values play a role in whether they’ll choose to consume three servings of meat per week or so.
Jacobsen: Was this in recognition of your overall work in health science, or was it for something specific?
Guyatt: It was for something other than a specific piece of work. It was for my overall lifetime contribution.
Jacobsen: Have you had any updates on evidence-based medicine, especially its definition, use, and practice?
Guyatt: There’s been an evolution. We’re always trying to improve shared decision-making, but it’s challenging. Do you remember what GRADE is?
Jacobsen: I remember the acronym but need help remembering what each part stands for.
Guyatt: I am also trying to remember what each part stands for.
Jacobsen: Wasn’t it about appropriate systematic reviews?
Guyatt: GRADE stands for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. It’s a framework for assessing the quality of evidence and deciding what’s trustworthy. It also helps move from evidence to recommendations or action. GRADE has been a big hit and is now used by over 110 organizations worldwide. Many consider it the standard for systematic reviews and guideline development.
However, GRADE has become too complex. Over 50 papers explain various aspects of applying it, and some of the guidance contradicts itself because of evolving changes. Some of it could be more sophisticated for many users. As a result, we are creating something called “Core GRADE.” It’s meant to simplify things by focusing on the essential components people need to know. We’re producing a series of papers about Core GRADE.
Jacobsen: What is in Core GRADE, not Core GRADE or general GRADE?
Guyatt: Well, it’s a bit difficult because it’s highly technical. We first say that methods are now available to compare a whole range of treatments simultaneously. But for Core GRADE, we’re comparing treatment A to treatment B. The more complex evidence evaluation methods are not part of our Core GRADE. We’ve identified benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, and values and preferences as key criteria for moving from evidence to recommendations.
But we’ve also identified issues like cost, resources, acceptability, feasibility, and equity may be involved. There’s a more advanced “evidence-to-decision” structure where you check off boxes for each factor. In Core GRADE, we say, “Please consider these issues.” However, we ask people to consider these issues without requiring them to fill out the entire chart, which can be time-consuming and energy-intensive. We’re trying to eliminate what you might call the “flat of the curve”—in other words, tasks that consume time and energy without significantly improving the result.
That’s an example of the kind of simplification we’re aiming for, where we say: “Think about these issues, but you don’t need to go through the whole process.”
Jacobsen: In addition to these modifications, are you developing new review methodologies or primarily focused on improving existing ones, such as GRADE or Core GRADE, or are you outside of Core GRADE?
Guyatt: Another key issue within the methods community is the ongoing tension between simplicity and methodological sophistication. What has happened to GRADE and some other areas is that there’s been an excessive focus on methodological sophistication without enough attention to keep things simple and manageable for users. So, we’ve just submitted a paper to The BMJ after going through a process of creating a simpler, yet still rigorous, way of assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials.
We’ll be introducing a new risk-of-bias instrument for randomized trials. A few years ago, we also developed a systematic approach to assessing the credibility of subgroup analyses, which is gaining traction and proving effective. These projects aren’t entirely new frameworks like GRADE, which fits under the broad umbrella of evidence-based Medicine (EBM). Instead, they’re components of the broader EBM and guideline process that aim to simplify and improve specific aspects.
Guyatt: As a global EBM community, one of our successes was rapidly producing evidence from randomized trials. One of the key innovations was using “adaptive trials,” also known as “platform trials”—probably a better term. Platform trials involve:
Setting up multiple centers worldwide or within a jurisdiction, following a single protocol.
Using the same data collection forms.
Adhering to the same ethical standards that we would follow for any trial.
But in this case, it’s for a series of trials.
So, for example, if you’re testing Drug A for a particular condition, you’ll collect the same types of data and measure the same outcomes across all sites.
And when you finish with Drug A, you don’t have to start all over again. You have all your centers signed up for a series of trials, all your data collection systems in place, your ethics approvals set, and everything ready. You move from one drug to the next. We had several of these platform trials running worldwide. As a result, we quickly identified three treatments that work for non-severe COVID-19 and three classes of treatments that work for severe COVID-19. That all happened rapidly. So, that was one big success.
The next step was quickly synthesizing the evidence from these trials. Up to 20 trials were published weekly at the height of the pandemic. Two major groups, including one at McMaster University, set up large operations to process this data. We had the resources to do this because many high-level grad students and junior faculty could handle the volume. We established this operation to process the 20 weekly trials, produce analyses, and identify what treatments worked and what didn’t.
We also incorporated network meta-analyses, which I referred to earlier, that allow for simultaneous comparisons of multiple treatments. So, instead of comparing Treatment A to a placebo or no treatment, you can compare A to B, C, D, E, and F and B to C, D, and so on. We weren’t just synthesizing data from these trials; we were conducting network meta-analyses.
The next step was to incorporate the evidence into the guidelines quickly. We streamlined the process of developing guidelines, building on work we’d already done. I’ve worked extensively with the World Health Organization on developing COVID-19 guidelines. We managed to accelerate the entire process.
We could quickly produce evidence from randomized trials, synthesize it into systematic reviews, and develop trustworthy guidelines to help clinicians manage their patients. That was a big success.
There were limitations, particularly in the public health sector. Public health responses were only sometimes managed as well as they could have been from an evidence-based perspective. One mistake that stands out is the failure to acknowledge uncertainty in decisions.
For instance, policies often shifted without explaining the reasoning: “Do this, now do that. Oh, no, do the opposite.” One significant error, in hindsight, was closing schools. It became apparent relatively early that children were at low risk. Yet, schools were closed, causing significant harm, particularly to vulnerable and disadvantaged low-income families. The cost of this decision was huge.
The question is, how could that decision have been made better? Acknowledging the uncertainty upfront helped.
Jacobsen: When did you first start writing for newspapers?
Guyatt: Oh, God. About 25 years ago—maybe 20 years. I’d have to check. It’s been long enough that I’ve forgotten exactly when I started.
Jacobsen: You tweeted or posted about avoiding paragraphs longer than three sentences on X. Why that specific length?
Guyatt: When I started writing for newspapers, I realized I needed to adjust my writing style. I had been reading newspapers all my life, but I hadn’t noticed how they were written. I decided to analyze what makes good newspaper writing. I was shocked that most newspaper paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. Occasionally, they’ll have paragraphs with three sentences, but that’s about it.
I thought, “Whoa, if I’m going to write well for newspapers, I must follow this style.” So, I started writing paragraphs that were at most three sentences, often just two and sometimes even one. Then, I realized that if this approach makes writing clearer in newspapers, it might also work in scientific articles. And, in my experience, it does.
It does make things clearer in scientific articles. That evolution of my writing significantly affected how I approach scientific writing.
Jacobsen: Do you have any tips for individuals who want to write about science but don’t need a background in it? I’m thinking of journalists and others, such as poets or writers, who want to express scientific ideas.
Guyatt: Sure. I wrote a paper more than 20 years ago specifically addressing this issue—journalists writing about health. How can journalists do a good job writing about health? Assuming they’re already good writers—that’s another issue entirely, but let’s assume the writer is good—one major problem health journalists face is that scientific findings are often oversold.
A good health journalist will repeatedly caution, “There’s much hype around this, but it’s probably oversold. Let’s be careful and wait for more evidence.” The problem is, this doesn’t make it into the newspaper. The editor will likely say, “Boring, boring, boring. Give me something exciting.” So there’s this huge incentive to declare, “Great breakthrough!” because that will make the article newsworthy. But if you write, “This isn’t such a great breakthrough,” the article often gets ignored.
It’s a tough position for health journalists, but if you want to do a good job, you must emphasize skepticism. One piece of advice: when there’s a purported breakthrough, don’t talk exclusively to the person who made the discovery. Talk to other experts in the field and see what they think about this so-called breakthrough.
And if you do talk to the discoverer, be aware of their inherent conflict of interest. They have every incentive to make people believe they made a significant breakthrough—they want invitations to speak worldwide, recognition, and more research opportunities. There’s a natural incentive to oversell the discovery. Also, follow the money. Who funded the research? Often, it’s a drug company with a vested interest in promoting the findings. There are multiple incentives to oversell.
Jacobsen: The last time we spoke, you mentioned a colleague working on something related to stroke risk. You said he might have found a way to reduce that risk. Was it Devereaux?
Guyatt: Yes, that’s right. Devereaux has done incredible work, but it focuses more on preventing complications after surgery. Specifically, he’s shown that low doses of anticoagulants can prevent cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes, after surgery. That’s probably what you’re referring to.
Jacobsen: What kind of risk reduction are we talking about?
Guyatt: I don’t know off the top of my head, but it’s around a 30% relative risk reduction.
Jacobsen: There’s been much discussion about losing trust in vaccines. What do you think are the causes and costs of that?
Guyatt: One of the things I’ve learned as an evidence-based practitioner is to quickly identify when I don’t know the evidence on a particular question. I avoid launching into speculative answers. I’m not a sociologist, and I don’t know which branch of social science would be best suited to address your question. I could speculate, but I wouldn’t be better at it than anyone else.
Jacobsen: That’s a fair point. You’ve made similar points in some of your posts. You’ve mentioned that when we receive criticism, we immediately get defensive. What is a more constructive response to that, rather than feeling threatened?
Guyatt: Well, the first thing I do is label it red alert. I’m feeling defensive and likely to respond in a sub-optimal way. Generally, the optimal way to respond is to say, “You may have a point.” Someone is pointing out a possible limitation in your work, so the first step is acknowledging that.
If you’re feeling defensive, it’s often a sign that the person has a valid point. So, you acknowledge it and say, “This doesn’t mean that everything I’ve put forth is fundamentally flawed, but it almost certainly means there are some limitations.” Considering those limitations and recognizing that your defensive feelings likely mean the other person has a point is a better way to handle the situation. Quickly acknowledging when someone has a point—even if it’s one I’d prefer not to admit—has been helpful.
Jacobsen: When we discussed red meat studies, we touched on some evidence that countered traditional health guidelines, specifically relative risks. Hypothetically, suppose someone wants to live the longest, healthiest life using evidence-based medicine. What tend to be the things most supportive of those goals and values?
Guyatt: Don’t smoke! The number one thing is: if you’re a smoker, stop. If you’ve never started, don’t. That’s the most impactful step for a long and healthy life.
After that, we’re talking about lifestyle factors. The evidence for dietary recommendations is limited. The Mediterranean and low-fat diets may increase lifespan, but the evidence isn’t robust. It’s not conclusive, but it’s still worth paying attention to.
Exercise seems like a good idea, but the evidence could be better. While it’s generally beneficial, I can tell you from personal experiences—such as my biking accidents—that it can also lead to injuries. I even had a subdural hematoma once. So, while I might have said, “Exercise probably won’t hurt you,” it depends on the type of exercise you choose. It certainly can hurt you.
Jacobsen: Outside of that, is there evidence in general to pick your parents well?
Guyatt: Absolutely, yes.
Jacobsen: What’s your general assessment of the current landscape of popular health reporting? As a non-expert journalist, has there been improvement, or are things largelythe same?
Guyatt: I have yet to focus much on critically reading popular health articles, so I’m not well-equipped to answer that in detail. However, as mentioned earlier, health journalists face a very difficult position. There’s a demand for bold, eye-catching statements, even when the evidence doesn’t necessarily support them. The challenge of balancing evidence with the need for sensational headlines remains unsolved.
Jacobsen: If we take a generalized approach to evidence-based evaluation, how do standardized tests compare to high school grades in predicting academic success?
Guyatt: Completely outside of my expertise.
Jacobsen: Are there any other lessons from COVID?
Guyatt: One thing I should have mentioned earlier about the success of evidence-based Medicine during COVID-19 was how we handled journal publications. Traditionally, from the time you submit your paper to the time it’s published, months go by. And if you talked about your findings beforehand, top journals would refuse to publish your work because they wanted the scoop.
During COVID, it became clear that this was completely irresponsible. Journals softened their stance and allowed pre-publications or preprints to circulate, which helped get critical findings out quickly. However, now that the crisis has passed, we’re seeing a return to the old ways. Even though important findings should be published quickly, they don’t get out as quickly as they should.
There were all these pre-publications. Before, when you did a pre-publication, the journals would say, “No way.” Thank God they did in these situations. The problem was that money was not available to do the research. But as soon, things were back to the way they were before. We have not lost everything but temporarily lost everything during COVID.
Jacobsen: Who are the main academic opponents of evidence-based medicine and the GRADE approach? I may be framing it improperly, too.
Guyatt: There is slower uptake in certain areas. The opposition has gone underground because everyone calls themselves “evidence-based.” “Evidence-based” is evidence-based without necessarily being evidence-based in how we think about it. There are mutterings here and there, but what used to be the fundamental challenge is not there anymore.
There are areas of slower uptake. Concerning GRADE, the oncology community needs to be faster. That one occurs to me. So, it is not opposition. It is a limited uptake, with more enthusiastic uptake in some areas than others.
Jacobsen: How do you see sloganeering as a problem in reporting on evidence-based medicine? So I can clarify. You were noting how evidence-based this and evidence-based that is. The way you’re saying that I sense a certain way in which public reportage on evidence-based medicine or people wanting to use the phrase “evidence-based medicine” because of its weight can lead to misunderstandings. Not only about how it is done but also about what it truly means to be appropriately evidence-based.
Guyatt: The biggest limitation getting on for 25 years, we’ve been making a big fuss that a central core of EBM is that evidence doesn’t tell you by itself what you do, but only if it is evidence in the context of patient preferences and values. Yet, people still have trouble grasping that. They think evidence-based medicine is all about randomized trials, but it’s not. It’s about finding the best available evidence to inform a decision one is facing. People have difficulty getting that, as well.
Jacobsen: Are there areas of medicine where “GOBSAT” (Good Old Boys Sitting Around a Table) is still a methodology?
Guyatt: I need to be made aware of any surveys on this, but there are areas where it’s still likely to occur, particularly in situations where high-quality evidence is unavailable or unlikely to emerge. For example, I have gone to meetings for rare diseases. Understandably, you have kids with terrible genetic diseases. Their lives have function going down. Something comes up. “We cannot wait to find out whether it works. You have to save the kid now.” This reaction is completelyunderstandable from an emotional standpoint but presents challenges from a scientific perspective.
But if someone says, “Our values and preferences are such that we’re ready to spend $1,000,000 a year,” that’s a serious consideration. They may spend that much money to give a child something that may have no beneficial effect and could cause harm. But if they value possible and unlikely improvement, then fine—let’s do it.
However, let’s keep the same rules to avoid acknowledging low-quality evidence. They don’t like calling it “low-quality evidence.” Let’s recognize that some things are simply more trustworthy than others. GRADE calls “low-quality evidence” untrustworthy, but they want to rename it.
For instance, the nutrition community has developed the NutriGRADE approach. Essentially, they say, “What you guys call low-quality evidence, we consider good evidence.” I understand their position and am sympathetic to their dilemma, but it’s still problematic.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of something we discussed in a previous interview that is worth re-emphasizing: fraud in the medical community. While it does happen, it doesn’t happen that frequently. For the most part, when fraud occurs, it gets caught, and they are penalized. This seems to be true for academia as a whole, too. What are the key points to emphasize regarding fraud in the medical community?
Guyatt: I can’t think of anything specific at the moment. What exactly are you asking about?
Jacobsen: I’m asking about the skepticism some people might have regarding the prevalence of fraud in the medical community. You’ve mentioned before that fraud is rare and usually gets caught. Can you elaborate on that?
Guyatt: Ah, now I see what you’re getting at. Yes, I believe fraud in the medical community doesn’t happen very often. When it does, it generally gets caught. It might happen more frequently than I used to think, but still, it’s uncommon.
After digging deeper, I found that there have been cases where people have uncovered more instances of fraud than expected. However, these are usually low-impact studies that need more attention. If someone commits fraud in an area that few people care about, it’s less likely that anyone will put in the effort to expose it.
Large-scale fraud that significantly impacts medical practice or research is rare. It is also unusual for fraud to lead to changes in major medical protocols or treatments.
Jacobsen: You mentioned the NutriGRADE approach earlier. Could you expand on that?
Guyatt: The NutriGRADE approach is used in nutrition and ranks evidence differently than in GRADE. They’re more willing to consider certain kinds of evidence “good” that we would label as low-quality. This creates challenges, as their system doesn’t align with how we assess the reliability of evidence. Still, it reflects the different values and needs within their field.
Jacobsen: What is NutriGRADE?
Guyatt: I only know some of the details, but it was developed about a decade ago or so. Essentially, they say, “We’re going to move the goalposts.” For example, these observational studies that GRADE would classify as low-quality evidence, NutriGRADE calls moderate-quality evidence. They claim that their nutrition studies produce more trustworthy evidence than GRADE suggests.
Jacobsen: Would you consider NutriGRADE reliable at all?
Guyatt: When you use the word “reliable,” it has a specific technical meaning for me as a methodologist. But if you mean in a broader sense—whether it’s trustworthy—here’s how I’d explain it. Let’s say you have two identical bodies of evidence. They are the same regarding how the studies were conducted, and the inferences you draw from them are identical.
Now, in one case, you could conduct a randomized trial. On the other hand, it’s impossible to conduct one. Are these two bodies of evidence equally trustworthy? The people who can’t conduct randomized trials might say, “Yes, let’s consider this more trustworthy since we’ll never have a trial.” But that’s not a tenable position. If the evidence is identical, it should be treated the same, whether or not a trial is feasible.
Jacobsen: You are a fan of acronyms. What is MAGIC, or the Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice initiative?
Guyatt: MAGIC is a group I’m involved with, and it’s focused on improving what we call the “evidence ecosystem.” An evidence ecosystem involves several steps: basic science informs observational studies, which inform randomized trials. Then, randomized trials inform systematic reviews, and systematic reviews inform guidelines. These guidelines then inform dissemination strategies to get evidence-based information out to clinicians and patients. It’s all about making the flow of evidence more efficient and actionable.
MAGIC’s role is to improve this evidence ecosystem. For example, during the pandemic, MAGIC helped enhance the system by establishing a collaboration with The BMJ for what we call “BMJ Rapid Recommendations.” We scan the literature for new, practice-changing evidence, quickly conduct systematic reviews, assemble a guideline panel, and produce trustworthy guidelines. These are then rapidly published in The BMJ.
During COVID-19, having already built this collaboration with The BMJ and the World Health Organization (WHO), MAGIC brokered a further collaboration between The BMJ and WHO. We served as consultants and partners with WHO to make sure the evidence ecosystem worked as efficiently as possible, especially when rapid decision-making was crucial.
At McMaster, we were one of the groups involved in a living network meta-analysis, where we processed all these trials to gather the necessary evidence. This evidence informed the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. So, while we didn’t create the evidence from the trials, we summarized it and brought it to the WHO, saying, “Here’s the latest evidence.”
We also acted as methodologists, helping the guideline panels move from evidence to recommendations. The day WHO publishes its recommendations, they’re also published in The BMJ. This way, the guidelines reach two different audiences simultaneously. WHO’s audience includes decision-makers, particularly in low-income countries, and The BMJ reaches a clinical audience. It was the first time this type of coordinated publication had been done.
This was MAGIC fulfilling its mission: processing evidence quickly, feeding that evidence into a trustworthy guideline process, producing trustworthy guidelines as fast as possible, and then disseminating the information effectively.
Jacobsen: I saw a tweet from September 25, 2023, that said, “Every high-income country with universal public healthcare has universal public prescription drug coverage, except Canada. It is time to change that with a public pharmacare program.” Does that sound correct?
Guyatt: You’re quoting me! We should have a universal pharmacy coverage system. However, claiming that every other country has universal coverage might stretch the truth, but it makes a political point. The gist is accurate: Canada is one of the few high-income countries without universal prescription drug coverage.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on that?
Guyatt: It’s true that in Europe, for example, well over 50% of drug payments are publicly funded, while in Canada, a large portion—over 50%—comes out of people’s pockets. In some European countries, it’s as high as 60-70% publicly funded. Canada did something odd—we decided to pay for doctors and hospitals. Still, we didn’t include prescription drugs in our universal healthcare system. Other countries have a more balanced approach to covering healthcare costs.
Jacobsen: Why did Canada take that approach? Was there a historical reason?
Guyatt: It goes back to the 1960s, to Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. The initial idea was to include drugs in the healthcare system, but it was something the government said they would get around to. They never did.
Jacobsen: Which European countries that offer universal prescription drug coverage are the most efficient in terms of cost and efficacy of outcomes?
Guyatt: My knowledge here is somewhat superficial, but I haven’t seen a single “role model” system that Canada could copy exactly. Some countries do certain things better, while others excel in different areas. It’s not as straightforward as saying one system is the most efficient overall.
Whether one system works better depends on local culture or specific policies. I’m unclear about which factors are most important.
Jacobsen: Speculative question: What gaps in the GRADE approach or evidence-based medicine could theoretically be addressed in the future, either as a new methodology or something outside its current scope?
Guyatt: I need help identifying any major gaps in GRADE, but we still face big challenges in efficient shared decision-making. Clinicians worldwide are time-constrained, and figuring out how to implement shared decision-making optimally remains a challenge.
Jacobsen: Could you break that down for those who might not be familiar with the concept?
Guyatt: Sure. One example we often use involves atrial fibrillation, an abnormal heart rhythm that significantly increases the risk of stroke. We have anticoagulants that reduce the risk of stroke but also increase the risk of serious bleeding. How do you present this information to patients so they can make informed trade-offs? It’s a delicate balance. Another example is breast cancer screening—if women fully understood both the magnitude of the benefits and the downsides, many would likely say “no thanks” to screening. But we don’t always present these choices in a way that helps people fully understand what they’re deciding.
Jacobsen: Could future systems, like large language models, help make this information more accessible?
Guyatt: Large language models won’t solve this issue. We still need to improve how we present the information. The key is conducting randomized trials on different methods of presenting choices to patients, but it takes work.
Jacobsen: Gordon, thank you again for your time, sir. I appreciate it.
Guyatt: Oh, are we finished? That’ll give me a few minutes to say hello to the person who just came into the room—my 101-year-old stepmother.
Jen Edgecombe (She/Her) is the Director of sexual health and Well-Being for Prostate Cancer at Movember in Toronto, Ontario. With over 15 years of leadership in healthcare, Jen is dedicated to improving equitable access to cancer care and enhancing patient experiences. At Movember, she manages and delivers innovative prostate cancer initiatives, focusing on sexual health outcomes for patients and their partners.
Previously, Jen was Manager of Provincial Programs at BC Cancer in Vancouver, where she advanced patient-centred care and fostered cross-sector collaborations across British Columbia. Her role as Clinic Director at Lifemark Health Group and her long-term tenure with the City of Kamloops highlight her expertise in leading high-performing teams and implementing evidence-based practices.
Jen holds a Master of Rehabilitation Science in Oncology Supportive Care from The University of British Columbia. She is a passionate advocate for lifestyle interventions to reduce chronic disease burdens. She is actively involved in community engagement and public speaking.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Jennifer Edgecombe, the Director of Sexual Health and Wellbeing for Movember. How did you initially get involved with Movember?
Jennifer Edgecombe: Yes, thank you for having me. I’ve been with Movember for three and a half months. Before that, I worked at BC Cancer, the cancer control agency for British Columbia. I led the Patient and Family Experience team and the supportive care work across the province. At BC Cancer, I worked on projects that examined the experience of prostate cancer care for people in British Columbia—evaluating whether they had the information they needed, where there were gaps in knowledge about the next steps in care, and then developing educational processes to help people better understand what to expect and how to engage in shared decision-making. Through our focus groups with people affected by prostate cancer, we found that many were unaware of how significantly prostate cancer treatments would impact their sexual health and function.
So, when I saw the opportunity with Movember to address this issue, I applied immediately, eager to get involved in helping to find a solution to this prevalent and serious issue.
Jacobsen: When do men typically become more proactive about their prostate health? Is it only when cancer becomes a concern?
Edgecombe: Are you asking about screening guidelines?
Jacobsen: Yes, screening guidelines and general awareness of prostate health.
Edgecombe: The challenge is that every country—and even different regions within countries—has its guidelines based on the availability of doctors, tests, and the types of tests covered by public health systems, which can vary widely. Typically, we encourage people with prostates to begin the conversation with their doctors around the age of 50. However, for people of African descent, and those with a family history of prostate cancer, medical associationsrecommend starting the conversation about prostate health as early as age 40.
Jacobsen: Why is there a difference in the age recommendations for people of African descent?
Edgecombe: That’s a good question. There are biological factors at play. Some genetic factors predispose men of African and Caribbean descent to higher rates of prostate cancer than men of other backgrounds. Additionally, access to prostate cancer screening is not as readily available to some demographics. We want to ensure these conversations happen earlier so that treatment can be offered sooner and earlier, if necessary.
Jacobsen: What factors, in terms of environment, lifestyle, and wellness, also contribute to increasing the risk of prostate cancer?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. There are genetic factors—if a first-degree relative, such as your father or brother, has had prostate cancer, you should consider getting checked. Prostate cancer is not a single disease; it consists of different tumour types and severities, so genetics plays a significant role. Lifestyle factors also matter—exercise, diet, alcohol consumption—all the things we know we should be mindful of contribute to someone’s risk of developing prostate cancer. If you have questions about your risk, speaking with a doctor is always a good idea.
Jacobsen: How much misinformation is there among men about their risk factors? Why don’t they check their health regularly, whether 40, 50, or older?
Jacobsen: Yes, this is a big issue for some individuals. There was a standard of care for a long time. In some areas, it’s still the standard to perform a digital rectal exam. This involves the doctor inserting their finger into a patient’s anus to check the prostate. For many individuals, that’s an uncomfortable and invasive experience, making it a test they would rather avoid.
Many health agencies have sidelined the digital rectal exam in favour of less invasive screening procedures. There are now blood tests that are quite accurate, and there are other tests your doctor can recommend. However, there seem to be two reasons people hesitate: first, the fear of testing because it feels uncomfortable, and second, the mindset of “if I don’t look at it, maybe it won’t exist.” Prostate cancer is a very prevalent disease, so it’s critical to encourage people with prostates to have these conversations and get checked as early as possible. This helps mitigate risk factors and ensures that testing starts early.
Jacobsen: What are comparable cancers in terms of prevalence in the general population?
Edgecombe: That’s a tricky question because there are cancers that are prevalent in the population, such as lung cancer or breast cancer. However, the impact and severity of those tumour types can be very serious. The survival rate for prostate cancer is quite high, so while the incidence of prostate cancer is high among North American men, the survival rate for isolated, localized tumours is also very high. I worry that comparing prostate cancer to something like lung cancer or breast cancer might cause more fear than necessary.
The important thing to understand about prostate cancer is that many people are diagnosed and go on to live very long, healthy lives. At the same time, there are comparable diseases in prevalence and onset, but the treatments and severity are not the same for most people. We want to encourage people to know their bodies and risk factors and get tested early to reduce those risks.
Jacobsen: What are some common detection and treatment modalities when resources are available?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. The detection and treatment options can be quite sophisticated in more urban or well-resourced areas with advanced medical technologies. One common approach for some types of prostate cancer is called “active surveillance.” This means the doctor will monitor the tumour regularly without immediately resorting to treatment. The idea is to check periodically for any changes and intervene only if necessary, which allows many people to live for a long time with minimal impact on their quality of life.
Another common treatment is surgery, typically performed by a urologist. The urologist surgically removes the tumour, a widely available option since it can be done in most surgical centers. Another option for some people is radiation therapy. In Canada, for example, access to radiation therapy is limited by the availability of expensive machines called linear accelerators, which are not present in every facility. Surgery may be preferred in less densely populated areas simply because it’s more readily available.
For more advanced-stage prostate cancer, there are also hormone treatments and systemic therapies, which target the cancer more broadly and are used when the disease has spread.
Jacobsen: What about in more isolated areas where advanced technologies might not be available for detection and treatment?
Edgecombe: This is another tricky issue, particularly for people in the United States or Canada. In North America, we see significant differences in access to care depending on where you live. In privatized healthcare settings, especially in the U.S., there’s often greater access to innovative treatments and cutting-edge technologies. However, access can be more limited in more rural or isolated areas.
As I mentioned, active surveillance is a viable option for some patients, which can be helpful in areas where more advanced treatments aren’t easily accessible. When treatment is necessary, surgery is generally available because it can be performed in most surgical centers. Patients may have access to radiation therapy in more urban areas or facilities with better funding, but that depends on the availability of equipment like the linear accelerator. For those with more advanced prostate cancer, hormone therapy or systemic treatments are also available options, though again, access may vary based on location and healthcare infrastructure.
So some people might recognize these as chemotherapy-type treatments. As I mentioned, prostate cancer is not a single disease, and it manifests differently in different people. For example, two people can both have prostate cancer, but one may undergo active surveillance while another might need intense hormone treatment, such as androgen deprivation therapy or radiation therapy. It varies from person to person. Additionally, some may have access to advanced private hospitals in the U.S. that offer innovative treatments that others may not even be aware of.
Jacobsen: What are the impacts on sexual health? How are men who are undergoing treatment or are post-treatment for prostate cancer managing the sexual health issues that may arise as a consequence of various treatments?
Edgecombe: Yes, this is an important question. It’s essential to define how sexual function changes and why that might occur. Experts in this field use what’s called the biopsychosocial model to explain changes in sexual function. So, is it biological—something physical that has changed sexual function? Is it psychological—perhaps increased anxiety that is causing changes? Or is it social—factors like relationship dynamics or even broader social factors, such as whether the individual belongs to a minority sexual orientation or gender identity group? These are the three areas we look at when identifying changes to sexual function.
With prostate cancer, there’s added complexity. The risk factors for prostate cancer overlap with risk factors for other diseases that can also affect erectile function. For example, diabetes can cause issues with sexual function. So, suppose someone with diabetes also has prostate cancer. In that case, the question becomes: Is the problem due to prostate cancer, diabetes, or perhaps anxiety? It’s important to consider all these factors.
In many press releases and studies, numbers are given to describe how many people experience sexual health changes related to prostate cancer, but I want to caution us here. There are a few barriers to confidently reporting these numbers. One of them is underreporting—many men may not feel comfortable disclosing changes in sexual function, especially in a society that emphasizes masculinity and the importance of erections. Are they willing to admit that their sexual function has changed? Another factor is the complexity I mentioned—whether the issue is due to diabetes, anxiety, or prostate cancer itself.
Experts seem to agree that most men with prostate cancer will experience changes in sexual function. Some may be able to resolve or improve the issue. Still, we must give people the language and remove the stigma so that they can have these conversations.
Jacobsen: In the biopsychosocial model, what are the chances that sexual function or dysfunction will resolve itself, and how common is this resolution among men who have had or are currently suffering from prostate cancer, especially with the benefit of modern expertise and technology?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. Much of the current work is focused on redefining sexual scripts, intimacy, and even the role of erectile function as a component of masculinity. It’s difficult to be certain about statistics when it comes to whether two people with the same prostate cancer will both retain or recover their sexual function after treatment. It’s highly individual, and what works for one person may not work for another.
On the biomedical side, various treatments are available to address biological issues. However, there’s a misconception among many people. Some think, “I’ll have the cancer treatment, and if there’s a problem afterward, I’ll just take a PDE5 inhibitor,” which is better known by brand names like Viagra or Cialis, and that will fix everything. The reality is that, for many people, those inhibitors won’t work because the underlying mechanism that they rely on has been altered by prostate cancer therapy.
Other devices, such as vacuum pumps and injections, can be used. Other rehabilitation treatments are also available, and clinics have been established to guide people and their partners through this process. When discussing the resolution, it’s important not to think about it as simply regaining the same function as before. Instead, there’s a shift towards redefining what sexual function means.
Many people define their sexual identity or “sexual script” based on their experiences at 17 when they have optimal health and function. Society tends to focus on penetrative sex as the ideal. Still, that mindset doesn’t always help individuals who have experienced changes due to prostate cancer. There’s an opportunity here to redefine what sexual health and intimacy mean and to encourage conversations that allow people to create a new normal.
Jacobsen: Why are the number of prostate cancer cases projected to double by 2040?
Edgecombe: You’re referring to the study funded by Movember in April. Several factors are contributing to the projected doubling of cases. First, the disease burden is already substantial. With more diagnostic tools becoming available, more cases are being identified. Additionally, lifestyle issues are playing a role. Unfortunately, society is not becoming more active and only sometimes adhering to recommended lifestyle guidelines.
These significant projections should be taken seriously because they will impact healthcare systems, individuals, families, and partners. It’s important to prepare for the increase in cases and ensure we have the resources to manage this growing health issue.
Jacobsen: How did the partnership with Movember come about? Aside from the study, what benefits have come from this partnership regarding raising awareness?
Edgecombe: Are you referring to the partnership with the International Society of Sexual Medicine (ISSM)?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Edgecombe: ISSM has been a global leader in sexual medicine for many years. When Movember was starting, it had always focused on prostate cancer—raising money and awareness about the disease. Early on, Movember identified that the number one side effect men were most concerned about after prostate cancer treatment was the resultant changes to sexual function. Initially, we thought it might be medication management or something else. Still, when we asked people directly, it became clear that sexual function was the most important issue for them.
So, Movember and ISSM created a partnership several years ago to address this concern and find ways to help people manage the sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment. Together, they’ve been working to provide resources and solutions for those affected.
Jacobsen: I was surprised that the investment was so significant. Movember’s investment in prostate cancer research totalled USD 230.4 million.
Edgecombe: Yes, that’s correct. Across Movember’s entire portfolio, a large portion of that funding is directed towards various cause areas, with sexual health being one of them. The investment spans multiple research areas, and sexual health is a key focus.
Jacobsen: What kind of feedback have you received, whether from media, experts, or other partners, regarding the funding, research, and awareness raised by Movember?
Edgecombe: It’s important to note that while Movember has funded many studies—and research is critical—studies alone aren’t the solution. They are just one part of the puzzle in addressing these issues. The feedback we’ve received is clear: people want action. They’ve spoken about the challenges they face. The research helps us understand those challenges, but the goal is to turn that understanding into practical solutions that help people manage the side effects of prostate cancer treatment, especially regarding sexual health.
Jacobsen: This is the number one issue men are dealing with after prostate cancer. By coordinating and funding the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines, Movember is truly putting its money where its mouth is and moving the conversation forward. This is going to completely change the experience of prostate cancer treatment for people around the world.
Regarding your question about the response, there has been a lot of excitement and optimism. For many, this has been a bleak area for a long time, and now there is hope. Physicians are going to be equipped with the tools they need to address sexual health changes with their patients. Patients, in turn, will receive the information they need to understand what will happen and how they can manage it. Nurses and allied health staff, including social workers and others on the care team, will also have the necessary knowledge. This ensures that the side effects will be addressed—not necessarily solved. Still, patients won’t be left at home, struggling with life-altering side effects and feeling like there’s nothing they can do or talk about.
This is going to change a lot of people’s lives.
Jacobsen: Has there been any resistance to the provision of these guidelines?
Edgecombe: Could you clarify what you mean?
Jacobsen: Sure. Have you encountered cultural or social resistance as Movember and the medical community introduce these new health guidelines, including recommendations and strategies to help patients? You mentioned earlier that redefining certain traditional models might be challenging in some subcultures within North America.
Edgecombe: Yes, that’s an important point. To clarify for anyone listening—Movember isn’t the author of these guidelines. Movember funded and coordinated the initiative, but these guidelines were developed by the world’s leading experts in sexual medicine, who synthesized the available data. Clinical guidelines represent the highest quality of evidence we have in medicine.
The guidelines consist of 47 clinical practice statements, and the first statement emphasizes that there should be a clinician-led conversation with the patient about realistic expectations for sexual function following prostate cancer treatment. This conversation must also include cultural and social factors. Part of this initiative’s work is ensuring that these conversations are sensitive to the individual patient’s cultural and social background. For example, you mentioned subcultures where traditional models might be more resistant to certain discussions. We recognize that people’s experiences in healthcare differ greatly based on these factors, so the guidelines must consider those differences.
This work is important because these underserved populations are the focus. In every region where we operate—Canada, the U.S., Australia, and others—we’re collaborating with local experts to understand who has historically had poor healthcare experiences, who might be missed by this service delivery, or who may face barriers to access. We’re then working to create culturally and socially appropriate approaches to care so that most people can benefit from it.
Jacobsen: As we’re looking at time, how can people get involved, whether through volunteering, financial contributions, offering expertise, or applying for positions?
Edgecombe: I’m new to Movember, but this work can only be done with people joining the cause. We’re approaching our campaign month in November, and if you can grow a mustache, that’s one way to raise awareness and funds. You can also get involved by moving your body—through walks, runs, or any exercise to raise money. Or you could host a fundraising event with friends and have everyone donate. It’s important to remember that this work requires significant investment, and we want to ensure we can continue impacting as many people as possible.
If anyone wants to get involved, please visit the Movember website for more information. Suppose you want details on the guidelines, this initiative, or sexual health and prostate cancer. In that case, we have a website called True North that is specifically for patients. We’re updating the True North website with the latest guidelines and resources from ISSM, so that patients can access the same information as their doctors. We want patients to be well-informed and empowered to participate in decision-making about their treatment. Those are two great ways people can get involved.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Any final thoughts based on today’s conversation, Jennifer?
Edgecombe: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. I believe that the way we, as a society, approach sexual health right now can be harmful to many people. If I can accomplish one thing in this role, it would be to see more people openly discussing changes to their sexual health—especially when it’s related to cancer. We don’t want people sitting alone, depressed, or suffering because of stigma or outdated beliefs about masculinity. I hope that through this work, we can advance conversations about sexual health and masculinity and foster more support for one another.
Jacobsen: Jennifer, thank you very much for your time today.
Edgecombe: Thank you, Scott. This has been great.
–
More info:
Grow The traditional way to Mo for Movember is to grow a moustache to raise funds for men’s health.
Move to Get physically active by walking or running over the month for the 60 men we lose to suicide each hour across the world.
Host A popular workplace option, get together with your colleagues and do something fun – trivia, a tournament or something creative.
Mo Your Own Way: A choose-your-own-adventure challenge epic in scope and scale. Think big and go bigger. You make the rules.
Seth Meyers, Psy.D. (Psychology Today) is a licensed clinical psychologist, T.V. guest, author, and relationship expert. He appears regularly on television on “Nancy Grace” and has also appeared on “Dr. Drew,” “20/20,” “Good Morning America,” “The Doctors,” “Fox News,” Showbiz Tonight,” “Bill Cunningham,” “Jane Velez-Mitchell,” “The Early Show,” “Good Day L.A.,” “KTLA,” and others. He has been featured in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Huffington Post. His official website includes many media credits and television clips. He wrote Dr. Seth’s Love Prescription: Overcome Relationship Repetition Syndrome and Find the Love You Deserve. His newest podcast, on Spotify and iTunes, is INSIGHT with Dr. Seth.
Meyers explains the complexities of treating narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), emphasizing the resistance to therapy due to narcissists’ lack of self-awareness and sensitivity to criticism. He discusses therapy options, the role of the false self, and the emotional toll on those close to narcissists, highlighting the frustration and self-erasure they often experience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Seth Meyers. We want to get some first thoughts on treatment modalities for either formal NPD or people along a spectrum of narcissistic patterns of psychology. So, what are treatment modalities available? What is the efficacy? What are your general thoughts on that, as an expert here?
Dr. Seth Meyers: Many individuals with mental health training will explain that a narcissistic personality is resistant to meaningful change. There are many different types of therapy that one could pursue for many different types of mental disorders, including personality disorders. One could seek out a behavioural type of therapy, such as dialectical behaviour therapy for the treatment of narcissistic personality, or one may seek out psychodynamic therapy, which is exploratory in nature to try to look at one’s unconscious drives, and motivations in order to see how that impacts their behaviour.
The same issue–let me put that differently; at root, narcissistic personality is a difficult disorder to study because it depends so much on the self-report of its subjects and because one’s self-image and presentation of self is central to the disorder, there is incredible loading or possibility for skewing and dishonest reporting. So, studying narcissism is much the experience of many reports of having a relationship with a severe Narcissist, which is to say, “Frustrating” because it is a complex construct that is difficult to truly examine.
Jacobsen: Is the difficulty in truly examining it due to the longevity of the enriched falsehoods that build or construct the complexities of the false self? The false self starts early to replace the true self or the authentic self–as placeholder terms.Does the longevity of this false self-existence and development make it that complex construct?
Meyers: So, to begin with, your question shows just how theoretical the construct of narcissism is. We have no ability toprove it. We will never prove the roots of narcissism.
Now, many people will talk about how there are two selves: a false self and a public self. As a practitioner and psychologist, I believe that. I also believe that we can glean that at some point in time, there was the construction of the bifurcation of 2 different selves. The problem is when it happened, it happened early, and that 6-year-old or 14-year-old probably wasn’t available to fill out any surveys that we could use later for psychological data reports. So we don’t know, and there’s a lot of inference.
There’s a lot of presumption that happens when we think about narcissists. What is most important whenever the conversation turns to narcissism is, “What can we say for sure? What can we say with the greatest certainty? And then what solutions are the best possible solutions given this, given what certainty we have”? What is most certain that we know is that people many people report having conflictual relationships with a subset of individuals who do not seem to have personality characteristics that are consistent with social convention and the social rules that young children are taught and then expected to have mastered by adult age, and those include basic things like empathy, social reciprocity, perspective taking, thinking about another person’s feelings.
We know for sure that there is a subset of individuals that display a lack of some of these important social characteristics, and yet, it does not necessarily translate to another subset of individuals we know of that we think of as full-blown psychopaths. And this subset that we are talking about is safe to call them–it is safe to refer to them as–narcissistic personalities because the DSM does do a good job of capturing those characteristics. Now, why does a person become a narcissist? We can only presume. Also, what is an effective treatment for a narcissist? Is there an effective treatment for a narcissist?
We’ll never have a good answer for that question a) because we would require an individual to believe that they have a problem in order to submit to treatment, and a part of the disorder is to resist the idea of there being any weakness or flaw. So, I’ll round out what I’m saying to say that another thing many people will share at the water cooler is that narcissists are never present for therapy, and this is common. This is conventional wisdom that narcissists don’t present for therapybecause they don’t believe anything is wrong with them. In my experience as a psychologist and as a practitioner, someone who has conducted and also reviewed 100, if not thousands, of complex mental assessments, mental health assessments over a 20-year career working in community mental health, hospitals, clinics, et cetera, that narcissistic personalities will actually sometimes present for therapy. Now, why do some narcissists go to treatment?
They do not go to treatment to correct problems they believe they have. They typically go because someone in their close personal life has bruised their ego, and what they do is they use the therapy and the therapist as a vehicle to ally with them and support them against the perceived threat or perpetrator who bruised their ego. Essentially, a narcissist may go to see a therapist to get the therapist to say, “Oh, you’re right. Your husband, or your wife, is crazy,” and sorry for talking so much.”
Jacobsen: It’s instructive. So they go to them for this validation of their false reality.
Meyers: To be propped up, that false self to be propped up.
Jacobsen: So when they’re doing this, are there ways in which ethically viable methodologies can leverage this pathology of that personality construct to provide a modicum of treatment?
Meyers: A meaningful question that is worth exploring is this one. If there is any way to reach a narcissist and possibly motivate change, what would that look like? The only hope for reaching a narcissist is to make them feel safe and to avoid anything at all that could even remotely be perceived as criticism. The narcissist is sensitive to criticism and hypersensitive to–hypersensitive in a way that almost reaches a state of clinical paranoia–that the slightest thing that could be wrong with them could act as dynamite because it could be used later as leverage against them. So a lot of what motivates the narcissist, what keeps them going, their guiding principle is to avoid vulnerability at all costs.
Narcissistic personalities tend to be scorekeepers, and the mental world they live in is all about who has the leverage. So exposing themselves and being vulnerable makes them terrified at root because they perceive it as an opening for someone to take advantage of them or exploit them, And they will not allow that under any circumstance.
Jacobsen: So there’s a lot there. Fear is the emotion of vulnerability and living in terms of the mental mode and the presentation of a false self. So what links this root in fear reaction, something automatic, this false self, and this not wanting, this lack of desire–whatever the opposite of desire is for–any form of vulnerability? So, the line of trend or thought is between linking both fear and not wanting any vulnerability. I guess the 4th one would be the extreme paranoia and the presentation of a false self in all ways. So let’s take a hypothetical–what happens if that person is, in fact, exposed and their illegitimate fears, in fact, do come true? What happens to this construct?
Meyers: One of the deepest and most primitive fears that a severe narcissist will have is the fear of being exposed, and that means being exposed as a human being with three dimensions and both strengths and weaknesses. See, flaws are not to be tolerated in the mental world of a narcissist. They cannot exist.
A lot of people will say that narcissism is a shame-based disorder, that the root of it is shame, that a young person was shamed so badly early on that it created this overcompensated self later. It’s a theory. Do I believe that that’s true? In some cases, though, that may not have happened. So now what happened with narcissism is you had some people that created this term.
“Well, these are covert narcissists,” “Well, these are these are more traditional narcissists,” and then you’ve got another camp that talks about malignant narcissists. All of these different terms show you how complex we are as everyday people; you know how complex this term is. And again, how frustrating because the truth is all we have are theories. All we really have are theories. But to answer your question in an organized way, what happens to the severe narcissist when exposed?
When a severe narcissist’s character defects are exposed, any vulnerabilities or weaknesses are exposed and able to be seen by others, especially anyone outside the home. The individual who perpetrated that exposure will become the target of rage. What most people cannot begin to relate to is the lengths to which the narcissistic individual has spent their life, their time, their energy, their mornings, noons, and nights trying to seal off any possibility that someone may come to see them as faulty in any way. The progression, the natural automatic reaction, is rage. Now, is there something biologically based happening?
Is there different amygdala functioning in narcissists? At what age? See, what we would really need in in the best best of all possible worlds, we would have really elaborate batteries of testing done, on children at 5, at 10, at 15, at 25. That way, then we could have a little better sense of the true roots of narcissism.
Jacobsen: It’s a good answer. What happens? Well, let’s take the inverse of these examples, and I don’t know how psychology presents itself. Healthy individuals, when they have their humanity shown, are not “exposed,” too, because “exposed” is a much more loaded term in this context. Although appropriate for the portrayal of the rage, coming out of the fear. So when someone has their regular self shown, they go to sleep. They go to the bathroom.
They wake up with bedheads. Just regular stuff. They got fired from some job some time ago. They failed an exam. Regular people stuff that happens from time to time. How does a normal, healthy person with a non-narcissistic psychological structure react, act, learn, and grow?
Meyers: So what I’m going to say to you is: I don’t know you, but I presume it will not make sense to you what I’m gonna say because my guess is that you are like most people.
If you ask a narcissist, what would you say are some of your weaknesses or some of your character defects? If you ask directly someone that you believe, and it’s only people, by the way, who truly can identify and know when an individual has this type of disorder, they feel it. They may not be mental health practitioners, but they know it; they feel it. They’ve read enough about it, usually people at work or people in their homes. Freud used to say that it is in one’s work life or one’s romantic life where one’s true deepest issues come out. It is true. It is within our work life and in our romantic life where, perhaps, our truest self gets to be known. Why? Because in those two environments, we are the most interdependent with others.
Interdependence, if you’re psychologically healthy, is terrific. Interdependence, if you are mentally unhealthy, is incredibly triggering. So a narcissist will tell you, will tell you, will look you straight in the eye with no effect, almost as if they don’t completely understand your question or are even slightly offended, will say, I don’t believe I really have any flaws.”
Jacobsen: That’s terrifying.
Meyers: Which is terrifying. Now, what a healthy person would say to the narcissist is, but are you do you believe you are not a human being? A part of normal social and psychological development, right, is for each one of us to progress from the age of children to adulthood to see our fallibility, our vulnerability. It is to say that, in some ways, to be a severe narcissist, their grandiosity is so extreme that, actually, they don’t see themselves in some ways as even human. Do you doyou know how wild that is to to wrap your head around?
Jacobsen: It seems as if from a non-expert perspective, when you’re saying these things, they are the literal case of a Martian, not coming down to Earth, but coming out of it, and finding themselves in a world in which their internal world is not fully integrated.
So there’s an insecurity of internal objects about life, ideas, people. So then, they have the paranoia example is quite interesting because it sounds they’re having a distorted interpretation of the events. Their internal objects are completely warped. So then, out of this paranoia, this misperception and misconception then becomes an extrapolated, to you, “Could you harm me sometime down the road? Therefore, I’m going to react and defend my hypothetical self.”
Meyers: That’s right. So, we are talking about cognitive distortion. We are talking about a type of cognitive distortion that can be so illogical. The question is, does it almost border on a mild psychotic process? At what point does someone’s grandiose delusion about their superiority break with reality to the point that we mental health experts would say, do we need to assess for psychosis? I’ll give you an example. I’ll share an example. I once had a supervisor in graduate school.
I went to grad school in New York. I once had a supervisor. She was working with a severely anorexic patient, severely anorexic. This individual had gone in and out of the hospital. The anorexia was so severe, and–I don’t know–you probably know enough about anorexia to know that this is a life-threatening disorder, anorexia. And this supervisor shared that she believed, based on her clinical expertise, she extrapolated that there may be what she believed is a psychotic element to that type of severe anorexia.
So, when we look at some of these cognitive distortions, now, we’re talking about severe narcissism as just one example, but there are many examples where one’s cognitive distortion about a thing, whether their own value as a person–narcissism, their own body–anorexia nervosa; when it can get so extreme that we really do have to ask ourselves to also rule out psychotic process diagnostically.
Jacobsen: Those seem like things you could potentially have a metric in terms of even gross anatomy of the mind. For things like the Penfield Map, you do actually get proportional sizing of things based on the number of nerves. If someone has a warped self-map with body dysmorphia and bulimia nervosa, could you, in fact, find something like “neural correlates” for these kinds of things?
Meyers: This is exactly why, in most colleges and universities, the psychology department is in the social sciences or inthe humanities department and not in the natural sciences. I do think that it’s possible. But any time we are trying to examine a disorder that is so interwoven with self-image, we will always have a challenge.
Jacobsen: Just mindful of time. So, what about the consequences, not for the individual? Those seem a little more obvious because if the person is living a false self, they’re essentially living a lie to themselves. When they are with others, when they want to date, mate, as they do, or others want to do with them–for a variety of reasons? What are the consequences of those relationships for people who find themselves in this vortex?
Meyers: Yes, so we are talking about the phenomenology of being in emotional proximity to a narcissist, the phenomenology of what it feels to be in a relationship, a consistent relationship with a narcissist.
I have written extensively about narcissism. I have worked with so many individuals who have had experiences with individuals who have narcissistic personalities. The experience is typically frustrating and self-erasing, self-dismissing. The individual in proximity to the narcissist, in regular proximity to the narcissist, comes to understand that their thoughts and feelings don’t really matter. Their thoughts and feelings are dismissed and waved away with a callous hand.
The individual comes to understand to keep the relationship; they must submit and agree to the spoken and unspoken rules that are outlined by the narcissist. Now, in the end, many narcissists are left either in work environments. People tend to leave those jobs or in romantic relationships; people will typically walk away. Children of narcissists will, sometimes, estrange themselves forever or for periods of time. Friendships will be abandoned altogether.
A lot of times, people that are blood ties or financial ties are the one thing that can keep people somewhat connected to people who are narcissists.
Dr. Sang Won Bae is an Assistant Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology’s Department of Systems and Enterprises, Charles V. Schaefer, Jr. School of Engineering and Science. Her research focuses on human-computer interaction, mobile health systems, and machine learning, with an emphasis on personalized interventions for vulnerable populations to promote health and safety. Bae talks about AI-powered smartphone applications designed to detect depression through subtle physiological and behavioural cues inspired during the pandemic to explore non-invasive identification mental health issues, particularly PupilSense, which analyzes pupil responses, and FacePsy, which assesses facial behavior markers including facial expressions and head gestures – for detecting depression in naturalistic settings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Assistant Professor Sang Won Bae. I wouldn’t have imagined this kind of development, but science never ceases to surprise me. Detecting depression through the eyes – this is fascinating. Has there been any precursor to this style of research using indirect measures to detect depression?
Dr. Sang Won Bae: While recent studies explored detecting depression using mobile sensors like GPS, it was the pandemic that motivated me to start this project. During that time, many of us were struggling with feeling depressed. It was difficult to stay focused, manage work, and even keep up with studying. As a professor, I had to transition to online teaching, delivering lectures through Zoom since nobody was allowed to come to campus.
All classes were conducted on Zoom. I asked my students to turn on their cameras so I could see their reactions. This would allow me to adjust the content, shift the topic, or add more comments based on their level of engagement and how well they were understanding the material.
But in reality, very few students turned on their cameras. Almost everyone kept their cameras off, leaving me to wonder, “What’s going on? Are they even listening?” It felt isolating. I was teaching, but it felt like I was talking to no one. As a teacher, I wanted to interact with my students. Still, I felt isolated, both as an educator and as a human.
So, I started wondering, “What’s happening when the cameras are off? How do they feel about the lecture?” I wanted to understand what was going on behind the scenes, especially during the pandemic. While I wouldn’t describe my own feelings as full-blown depression, I did feel down, with an underlying sense of sadness and isolation. In early 2020 – around January or February – I contracted COVID, and that experience reinforced my belief that there was much more to explore.
People were putting on brave faces, but I wanted to know: could we find a way to help students and others who were struggling? What was really happening behind the scenes? We were no longer physically interacting, communicating only through devices—computers and smartphones—not human-to-human interaction. That’s when I felt we needed to do something about it, which became my motivation behind this project.
Jacobsen: This personal issue became a professional area of expertise for you.
Bae: Exactly, and it’s clear there are limitations of the existing systems. For example, there have been studies using the Facial Action Coding System to detect depression severity or mood disorders, but most of them were conducted in lab settings. Typically, these studies involved recording interviews with individuals experiencing mental health issues to analyze specific features, or they used actors to mimic various emotions in order to collect data. While these methods can be quite accurate, they often overlook a critical issue from the user’s perspective: the stigma associated with being monitored under the guise of advancing computer vision technology.
Jacobsen: Why did you choose the eyes as a metric or marker for detecting depression? I assume it’s part of a broader spectrum, of course.
Bae: Yes, it’s not just about the eyes alone. Other facial expressions and physiological elements, such as the pupil-to-iris ratio, play important roles as well. For example, when you’re focused, your pupils tend to constrict. But if you’re distracted or not engaged, your pupils dilate. These subtle changes in pupil size, known as pupillometry, can provide valuable insights into a person’s mood or mental state.
The eyes are a particularly interesting marker because they are part of a larger set of behavioral and physiological phenotypes that can indicate attention, distraction, or even emotional states. The eyes not only reflect someone’s affective and cognitive status, but they can also hint at broader health conditions. For example, certain changes in eye behavior have been linked to conditions like high blood pressure or neurological disorders. While it’s not the eyes themselves that show these issues directly, the patterns of eye movements and responses can be used to infer underlying health conditions through careful analysis.
Jacobsen: How does combining the analysis of the eyes with facial expressions provide a robust metric for detecting depression? And what is the margin of error?
Bae: We’ve reported an error rate of less than 5%. Our system achieved an accuracy of over 76% using PupilSense and 69% with FacePsy, using rigorous cross-validation approaches. This means that when new, unseen data from participants is introduced, the algorithm can predict whether someone is depressed with 76% accuracy using PupilSense and 69% accuracy using FacePsy.
This is quite innovative because other researchers often use different sensing technologies, like activities and GPS, which can raise privacy concerns. That’s why we try to use just the smartphone without invading privacy. The system only triggers and collects data when users use their smartphones.
If you’re asking what specific signals indicate depression, there are many. We’ve found key markers such as head gestures, eye movements, and smiling behaviour. Our mobile application includes a range of behavioural markers, including pupil-to-iris ratios.
As for accuracy, we’ve introduced two main applications and have two more in development. Recently, we published papers on understanding human emotions and mood using facial markers. The model’s performance would improve if we included additional sensors like GPS, movement tracking, or other features. However, using multiple sensors requires significant computational resources, and it could be more scalable for everyday use, as most researchers or participants would need access to large computing systems they don’t have.
That’s why our open-source affective sensing framework will be scalable—not in the distant future, but right now. We’ve already shared the framework and application data on GitHub. Many other developers and researchers can build upon this work for future studies in mental health, eye diseases, diabetes, and using facial features to understand dementia.
Many other diseases can be detected, and this will be feasible.
Jacobsen: So, why the eyes? Why facial expressions? And why mobile?
Bae: We tend to make social faces and expressions when we meet people in person. We say, “Hi, how are you?” and smile. But when someone closes the door and looks at their mobile phone, they show a different side. They might browse, and we observe this shift – the change in their facial expressions and perhaps their mood when interacting with the virtual world through apps, search engines, and social media.
One interesting finding in our studies is that depressed individuals tend to smile more compared to healthy participants. It doesn’t seem intuitive at first, but this is part of the phenomenon of masking depression. We also noticed that, which we haven’t reported in full, depressed individuals were more likely to use social media, entertainment apps, games, and YouTube. They’re searching for something to entertain themselves, looking for fun, funny videos or other content to make them feel happier.
We are preparing follow-up studies to analyze app usage and to know more context about what people do when they feel sad or happy and how their mood changes would be ideal. Excessive use of social media can contribute to feelings of sadness or depression, especially when people compare their lives to the curated, idealized versions of others’ lives. Everyone seems to be happy, travelling, and enjoying life. This constant comparison can lead to a decline in mental health.
Jacobsen: Yes, people are curating an idealized version of themselves for the world to see, and others who view this may feel worse in comparison. There’s certainly a logic to that. The major benefits of this technology are, first, it’s cost-effective. Second, it can be implemented now. Third, it has reasonable accuracy. And fourth, it can be distributed globally as an app.
So, my main question is: if you’ve combined facial expression analysis with PupilSense for early depression detection, what other easy-to-measure metrics could be integrated into the same smartphone app further to increase the accuracy and robustness of early depression detection? Are you working on such developments? I’m sure you’ve thought about those.
Bae: Yes. If you’re asking about additional features, there is more we can explore, particularly regarding application usage. You mentioned curation, which refers to what users seek and how often they visit specific applications and content.
We are currently using Android application categories, and while we can’t always see the exact name of the app unless it’s registered, we can still understand if the app is categorized as entertainment, work-related, or GPS and navigation. It’s possible to analyze the relationship between the use of these different categories – productive apps, entertainment apps, and more – with their emotional state and depression. This virtual behaviour can give us insight into their mood, which would be useful for intervening and delivering specific content that could help.
However, it’s critical to understand that we don’t need to know exactly what they are reading or viewing. That would be too invasive. For instance, if an application knew exactly what I was reading, that would raise privacy concerns. However, knowing which category an app belongs to and how frequently users engage with it provides enough insight.
Think about Netflix, for example. They might want to know what users are watching and how they feel while watching. Our application can capture various emotions and sentiments, and the time of day or duration of app usage is critical. Understanding these patterns of depression could be key in developing a more innovative and preventative approach so we can identify when someone might need help before they realize it themselves.
Jacobsen: How can these apps be improved in their next iteration?
Bae: In the next iteration, the focus will be on improving our algorithm’s accuracy to obtain generalizability. We are working on validating the model further before moving into large-scale clinical trials with depression patients. So far, we’ve made significant strides by incorporating new sampling methods and optimizing features like sampling time and battery usage to ensure the app performs well in various real-world environments.
To make the app more scalable and generalizable, we’ve been having productive discussions with institutions like Johns Hopkins and MATClinics. However, we’re eager to collaborate with more medical researchers and experts (email: sbae4@stevens.edu) who are interested in joining us in expanding the app’s potential.
Looking ahead, accessibility is another key priority. We want to make the app more user-friendly, especially for people who face barriers to healthcare, such as immigrants, low-income individuals, and others who have difficulty accessing hospitals or clinics. Our goal is to empower them to take control of their own health monitoring and management before any negative consequences arise. I firmly believe early detection saves lives when proper just-in-time interventions are delivered.
Jacobsen: What were the hurdles in the full development of this app?
Bae: One of the major hurdles was the approval process. It took almost a year to get the research started, largely due to the extra precautions and considerations around potential risks during the pandemic. Another challenge was finding participants for the modeling process. Given the pandemic, it was difficult to recruit enough people, and passive sensing research can be inconvenient for users, as they had to keep the app running for a full month without deleting it. I’m incredibly grateful to those who participated, as their commitment made a huge difference. Even though the compensation was minimal, they believed in the value of the research and stayed engaged. I’m also thankful to the volunteers who helped with pilot testing, as their support was crucial in overcoming these hurdles.
Jacobsen: Who were important collaborators?
Bae: The person who contributed the most was, without a doubt, Rahul, a PhD student in our lab, who worked tirelessly on the development. I also want to mention Priyanshu and Shahnaj, our assistant researcher and volunteer, for their help. And of course, Professor Tammy Chung from Rutgers University, who I’m currently collaborating with on an NIH project, has been incredibly supportive and believed in the potential of this research. Most importantly, this project wouldn’t have been possible without the Startup funding support from the Department of Systems and Enterprises at our university.
Jacobsen: Dr. Bae, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bill Allen has been living with prostate cancer since 2004, undergoing various treatments including surgeries, radiation, bone scans, and white blood cell transfusions. Prior to his retirement in 2013, he enjoyed a 40-year career with Travelers Insurance Company. Now, he fills his time with gardening, golfing, line dancing, and cherishing moments with his grandchildren and family. Allen spoke about his personal journey with prostate cancer, starting in 2003. Allen discusses his diagnosis, treatment, including surgery and radiation, and the challenges of clinical trials and medication. He emphasizes the importance of healthcare equity, particularly for African Americans, and highlights his participation in trials despite concerns, showing the value of patient representation and awareness in medical research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Bill, should we start with the personal aspects or clinical trial information? Let’s start with your journey. What is your personal experience as someone living with prostate cancer? How did you find out? How has it progressed? What is the process like for men who may not know what to look for?
Bill Allen: Let’s begin in 2003. I had an annual exam. It’s important, especially after the age of 50, to have an annual check-up, which for me includes a digital rectal exam (DRE) of the prostate gland performed by my general practitioner. During that exam in 2003, I was advised that there was something slightly unusual about my prostate. My doctor wanted me to follow up. This was toward the end of the year, around October or November 2003. In 2004, I scheduled an appointment with a urologist who conducted further tests, including a biopsy. About a week or so after the biopsy, I was informed that I had prostate cancer.
Another indicator was my PSA level, which had risen to 12.5. That was another signal to my physician that further investigation was needed. My Gleason score came back at 7, with the highest score being 10, indicating that the cancer was moderately aggressive. So, I had to make some treatment decisions. In 2004, I was advised about the various treatment options available for prostate cancer at that time.
Not understanding what prostate cancer entailed, all I heard was the word “cancer,” and it hit me hard. I was overwhelmed with distress, depression, anxiety, and concern. It was traumatic. I remember going home that day; my wife, an educator, was at work. I have two sons—my oldest was in college in 2004, and my younger one was also away at school but had come home. The news just knocked the wind out of me.
Later, my wife and I met with the urologist, and they walked us through several treatment options. There was a range of therapies, including brachytherapy (seed implants), radiation, a prostatectomy, or a combination of radiation and hormone treatments. It took some time, but by May, I decided the best option for me was to have the cancer surgically removed from my body. I underwent a prostatectomy.
Back then, the procedure was more invasive than it is today. I like to say they “deleted” you. It’s a serious surgery. Nowadays, it’s done robotically, requiring just a small incision to remove the gland, and patients recover much more quickly. But in my case, they had to perform traditional open surgery. I stayed in the hospital for several days and went home with a catheter and medication. A home healthcare nurse visited to ensure my recovery was progressing well. The healing process took about eight weeks, and that’s the summary of my journey.
That was in 2006. I returned to work, and around 2010, my PSA rose again. The urologist, who was my primary caregiver at the time, had been monitoring me with periodic PSA blood tests. When my PSA began to rise, they recommended radiation. This meant they needed to radiate the prostate bed, which is the area where the prostate gland had been removed. They believed that some cancer cells were still present in that area.
I received treatment at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Massey Cancer Center in Richmond, Virginia, where I was living at the time. I underwent about 36 radiation treatments.
Jacobsen: Thirty-six treatments? How often were those?
Allen: Yes, 36 treatments, roughly one per week. During this time, I continued working, traveling, and flying for my job. I would come back home on certain days, often on a Thursday or Friday, to receive the radiation treatment. Fortunately, I experienced no major side effects and could continue working throughout the treatment.
During this time, one of the clinicians asked if I wanted to participate in a clinical trial. The study involved testing several drugs to determine if they could mitigate any side effects, lower my PSA, or prevent the spread of cancer. I considered it, and they provided me with all the documents and consent forms. I reviewed everything with my wife since this was all new to me. I’d never participated in a clinical trial before.
I had some reservations, especially being an African American man. I had attended an HBCU, Xavier University of Louisiana, in New Orleans, and I was aware of the troubling history of clinical trials that adversely affected African Americans. We all know about cases like Henrietta Lacks and others who were unknowingly subjected to experimentation.
Jacobsen: Given that history, what made you go through with it?
Allen: Despite my concerns, I decided to participate in the trial. I wanted to do everything I could to prevent the cancer from spreading, and I also saw the potential benefit for others if the drugs proved effective in treating prostate cancer. I started taking two drugs alongside the radiation. After my 36-week course of radiation ended, I continued in the clinical trial, going back to the clinic regularly for blood tests and check-ins with the clinician about how I was feeling and any side effects.
For the first few months, everything seemed fine. But about six months in, I started feeling off—exhausted and tired when I normally wouldn’t be. I shared this with the clinician and eventually decided I didn’t want to continue with the trial.
They said, “We’ll take you off. Come back, and we’ll still monitor you for a few visits. After a while, you should feel okay.”
And that’s what I did. So that was my introduction. The hardest part was making the decision and then dealing with what might have been a side effect, but I didn’t want to continue. I’m not sure whether that combination of drugs had any long-term effects on my condition. That was in 2010.
I’m still working, but my PSA rose again. I kept talking with my urologist, who was still my provider. That’s when I started hormone treatments, specifically with a drug called Lupron. It reduces the testosterone in your body, so the cancer doesn’t have the fuel to grow.
However, Lupron has other effects. It’s almost like medical castration, as it impacts your testes, testosterone levels, and muscle mass. It drastically reduces your testosterone, changing your physical makeup. I was getting the shot every three months, and it worked. Since 2010, I’ve been on hormone therapy. Over time, I moved from getting the shot every three months to now getting it every six months. Since moving from Virginia to Maryland, I now see a local urologist who manages my treatment.
Up until 2020, my PSA remained stable. It’s not at zero, but at about 0.1 or 0.2, which is very low and good. That means the cancer hasn’t metastasized or spread to other organs. Prostate cancer tends to attack the lymph nodes or bone marrow, which is where it does the most harm.
So, I’m trying to get my chronology straight here—I’m still on androgen therapy, and now I’ve been advised to consider oral therapy. There are two drugs I could take that would help minimize the rise of my PSA and specifically target the cancer proteins. At first, I didn’t want to take the drugs because their side effects seemed worse than the remedy itself.
I looked at one drug and read the detailed information about medications—the side effects, how to take it, when it was developed, and data from the trials. When I read about these oral drugs, I focused on how many people like me were in those studies.
If a study included 1,200 participants, the information would tell you what happened to those men. Some got sick, and some even died, though not necessarily from the drug but from the cancer itself. However, I didn’t see many participants who looked like me, and that made me hesitant about taking the drug because these drugs are a lot more powerful. So, I decided to wait and see instead of starting the oral therapy right away.
But eventually, I had to come around and make the decision to take oral medication to help with my prostate cancer. As of today, I’m on oral chemotherapy, and I still take my androgen or Lupron shots. I take four tablets a day. The cost of the oral medication is about $15,000 a bottle, which makes each pill worth around $120.
That was another reason for my hesitation. I’m retired, and while I have retirement income, covering that cost significantly impacts my life moving forward. It becomes a situation where you ask yourself: do you choose to live to die or die to live? I guess that’s the analogy I would use if you’re debating whether or not to take a drug.
Fortunately, the urologist and the practice I’m with have a unit specializing in writing grants. They help patients access funds to cover the cost of treatment for certain high-cost diseases. The funding is based on the disease, and they’ll cover some of the cost. I’m a Medicare recipient with a supplemental insurance plan, which helps, but my monthly copay was still close to $2,000.
That’s where the PAN Foundation came in. I learned about PAN, and they agreed to cover the cost of the medication for a year. You have to reapply for the grant every year, but I’m thankful to have a provider that offers this kind of service to its patients. And I’m also grateful for organizations like PAN, whose mission is to help individuals with diseases by covering the cost of medications that would otherwise be unaffordable.
With PAN’s help, I’ve been able to manage. My cancer did metastasize, and it spread to a lymph node in the upper lateral part of my body. In 2020, I had additional radiation to address the spread, and that seemed to work. It reduced the cancer in the lymph nodes, and I haven’t had any further problems.
The major issue I haven’t faced is that it hasn’t spread to my bones, which is a good sign. So, the decisions I’ve made about my health, along with the advice of my doctors, seem to be working. They provide much guidance, and I listen—when I say “sometimes,” it means I don’t always want to jump into the next suggested treatment immediately. There are some really exciting advancements in the treatment of prostate cancer in men.
There are many drugs available in the marketplace, and as your cancer progresses, you can move to the next stage of treatment. The goal is to keep your PSA from increasing and prevent the spread of the disease. So, when I say I listen to my doctors, they offer me various therapies. Still, it’s my choice to determine if I need that therapy at a particular moment. That’s always my question—do I need to do this now?
Where do I need to be in your health situation to start on a new plan or a new drug? Is there a point in the future where it might be too late if I wait too long, or could I delay starting too soon? These medications can significantly affect your physical health and well-being.
These drugs can make you tired, cause headaches and fatigue, and, in some cases, even lead to heart attacks or other cardiovascular issues. So, I want to be very careful about the approach I take. If I can manage my health as it is right now, that’s what I feel comfortable doing.
But as long as my doctors stay on top of things—they run CT and bone scans—they’re ensuring my bones are strong. I’m on calcium, vitamin D3, and other supplements to help support my immune system. I’ve taken a real interest in maintaining good health because I feel good.
I don’t have any pain from the prostate cancer. I can do my gardening, I can do my line dancing, I can go on trips, and I can spend quality time with my family and grandkids. That lets me control my feelings about what I can and can’t do, if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Now, let’s focus for a moment on an important issue. Studies show that around 90% of people of colour in the United States trust healthcare providers. Still, participation in clinical trials is much lower. Can you share your thoughts on this and your reasons for encouraging more participation, especially within African American communities?
Allen: There are several factors at play. The first is perception. Many people don’t have a positive reaction to clinical trials. I had a positive experience with clinical trials. Most men—around 83%—view clinical trials as something positive. So, the general perception is good.
However, when it comes to participation, people want more information. In a study conducted by PAN, 58% of men of color said they would participate in clinical trials if they knew more about them. The survey also revealed that motivation plays a key role. For me, part of my motivation was helping others. Similarly, in PAN’s study, 40% of men of color said they would participate because they knew it could benefit others.
Trust in the provider, trial representation, and awareness of how clinical trials can break down barriers are critical. In the African American community, about 34% said they would participate, which is encouraging. They need to know when, where, and how it’s done.
The PAN Foundation has been working on this through its initiative. They’ve developed an “Opening Doors to Clinical Trials” website with a trial finder. Patients can search for clinical trials based on their specific disease and location—down to the zip code. Universities or clinics often run clinical trials, so it’s important to make this information accessible.
They’re run by different disease organizations. As I mentioned earlier, I have a brother, a nephew, and a cousin—she’s female—who participate in clinical trials for a degenerative disease called ataxia, which runs in my family. This disease originated on my mother’s side. Four of her siblings, including herself, passed away from this disease.
I have two brothers who have ataxia. One is in a clinical trial, and the other has passed away. So, I can see the value of having representation in clinical trials, even within my family. My family members’ motivation is to help any other relative who may face this disease in the future, which is crucial because this condition is genetic.
Awareness is key here—knowing where to find information is essential. From what I’ve learned, the PAN Foundation has prioritized patients in its efforts, ensuring equitable access to healthcare for individuals with various conditions.
Jacobsen: Bill, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Allen: Thank you. I appreciate being part of this. Well, is that enough information for you?
Allen: Yes, this is good. Including a personal story is quite nice. It adds a dimension to the discussion that makes it relatable.
Jacobsen: It’s a long personal story, starting back in 2003. That makes it even more helpful. Because for me, I didn’t know the journey could be so prolonged. I thought it was a matter of surgery or treatment, and then it’s over. But now I see how much it has evolved. Your story also reduces the stigma around trials and doctors, especially when you mention how surgery techniques have advanced—from being invasive to now being laparoscopic That’s helpful.
Allen: Yes, it’s quite an improvement.
Jacobsen: Thank you again.
Allen: You have a good day.
Jacobsen: You too. Take care.
The PAN Foundation’s recent survey, conducted in collaboration with The Harris Poll, reveals a strong interest in clinical trials among underrepresented communities, including people of color and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The data highlights that while 83% of people of color and 86% of LGBTQIA+ respondents view clinical trials positively, a significant gap exists in participation rates. A major barrier is that many have never been invited to participate, despite showing interest. The survey also found that most participants trust their healthcare providers, but only 22% of people of color and 20% of LGBTQIA+ individuals have had discussions with their doctors about clinical trial opportunities.
In response to these findings, the PAN Foundation has launched the Opening Doors to Clinical Trials initiative, designed to increase diversity and participation in clinical trials. This initiative offers resources like the ComPANion Access Navigators, who provide personalized support, and an online trial finder to help individuals navigate the process. By addressing barriers such as medical mistrust and logistical challenges, the PAN Foundation aims to create a more inclusive environment for clinical research, ensuring underrepresented populations have the opportunity to participate and contribute to advancements in healthcare.
For anyone ready to take the next step in learning more about clinical trials and how to get involved, visit the PAN Foundation’s Opening Doors to Clinical Trials initiative at clinicaltrials.panfoundation.org.
Tone Southerland is a healthcare IT expert and the current PCC Domain Representative to the IHE International Board. With a career spanning over two decades, Tone has been deeply involved in shaping healthcare interoperability, particularly through his work with IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise). His expertise lies in navigating the complexities of healthcare data integration, policy, and security. Tone is passionate about ensuring that patients and providers have seamless access to accurate and timely health information. He has been a key figure in developing frameworks like TEFCA, and is committed to transforming healthcare quality through technology.
Southerland discusses the complexities of healthcare interoperability compared to other industries like finance. Southerland explains the challenges, including the human aspect of healthcare, complex workflows, and the role of government policies. He highlights the importance of healthcare data accessibility, security, and privacy, and then touches on HIPAA’s role in safeguarding patient data, Medicare fraud, and the efforts to protect against misuse. Southerland emphasizes the potential of interoperability in improving patient care and enabling whole-person care by integrating diverse data points. He also discusses the significance of the Connectathon and the potential of healthcare IT advancements.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are you today?
Tone Southerland: I’m doing great. I’m excited to chat about IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise).
Jacobsen: Excellent. So, the first question is: Why is the healthcare industry slower in adopting advanced technologies compared to sectors like finance?
Southerland: Yes, that’s a great question, and it’s one that’s been asked a lot. Healthcare is different from other industries, and there’s much more complexity involved. Three key factors make it challenging.
First, there’s the human aspect of healthcare, which is difficult to codify into data that can be easily transferred and consumed electronically between systems. For example, when I visit my doctor, we have a relationship andhey know things about me that are difficult to express in coded medical terminology. This aspect of care is represented as “narrative text” in clinical notes. While there are ways to exchange that narrative, the human element will always remain essential in healthcare.
Second, the workflows in healthcare are more complex than in industries like banking or insurance. In those industries, the workflows are relatively finite. The tasks are straightforward, whether transferring money, buying stock, or granting account access. In healthcare, patients move between vastly different care settings. For instance, if you go for a radiology appointment, the workflow is controlled: you have an initial consultation, undergo scans, wait, and the radiologist reads your scans. But afterward, you’re referred back to your primary care doctor or to a specialist, and they continue interpreting the results, explaining them, and possibly sending you elsewhere for further care. Your healthcare journey might also transition to home care, adding even more complexity. That’s what IHE focuses on—standardizing workflows across these diverse care settings.
Third, policy plays a big role in how quickly healthcare interoperability progresses. Government policies and incentives encourage electronic health record (EHR) vendors and healthcare providers to exchange data and participate in electronic data collection. In some cases, there are penalties for not moving quickly enough. While these policies are complex, much progress is being made.
Jacobsen: Why is interoperability such a pressing issue in today’s healthcare landscape?
Southerland: I’ve been working in this field for about 18 to 20 years, and I was excited when I started—I’m still excited about it now.
I saw much opportunity then. I see many opportunities now. But I also see that through my lens as a technologist, not a clinician; clinicians I engage with still need help with some of the same issues when accessing data. They may have access to data, but how well can they use that data?
This year, a study published in the National Library of Medicine examined this issue. They surveyed about 2,000 physicians. Of those, 70% indicated they have access to healthcare data. Still, only about 23% said they have easy access, and only 8% said they have very easy access to the right data. So, they may have access to data, but do they have access to the right data in a way that they can use it effectively to improve health outcomes for their patients?
That’s a big challenge, and why healthcare interoperability is so important. IHE—Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise—is working to solve this problem. Our goal is to get the right data to the right doctor for the right patient at the right time, with the relevant level of detail, so that they can provide better care. Additionally, part of any data exchange is security and privacy.
Jacobsen: How do security and privacy concerns factor into this?
Southerland: It’s huge. Suppose you’ve followed any cybersecurity news over the past 10 to 20 years. In that case, you’ve noticed that security threats have only worsened. On the bright side, defenses have also improved, so it’s always a constant battle—what technology can we implement to protect data from hackers, and how do we stay ahead of new hacking methods?
This is an ongoing challenge. When discussing security and privacy, it’s important to distinguish between them. Privacy is about consent—do I consent for someone to access my data, and to what degree? Consent can be granular. For example, I might only want to share information about my allergies but not my mental health data. I may choose to share it with one doctor but not another. I might allow my mother access, but not my spouse.
Consent can become complicated. IHE provides mechanisms to manage consent through various consent-based profiles, but that’s only one piece of the puzzle.
The security piece is about protecting the data itself. This includes encryption algorithms that safeguard data stored on servers. That technology has been around for a while and continues to evolve. What has become more prevalent in the last 10 to 15 years is the HITRUST framework, which requires healthcare organizations storing protected health information (PHI) to implement policies, procedures, and processes to protect that data. But there’s a human element as well.
It’s not just about having the right encryption; it’s about training your staff. Are they following least privilege principles? Are they adhering to OWASP’s top 10 security guidelines? There are many moving parts, but frameworks like HITRUST and SOC2 help ensure that organizations working with sensitive data protect it adequately.
Jacobsen: What are the risks of a data breach? When those instances happen, how do doctors, patients, and companies react to them? How do they manage damage control? Could you provide a real-world example of why this is important rather than just listing ways to protect oneself?
Southerland: Yes. HIPAA oversees all of this.
HIPAA, which became law in 1996, introduced regulations that set limits on how patient data should be protected. Provider organizations are required to report breaches, especially when a minimum threshold of patients’ data is involved. This is a deterrent because organizations don’t want to be on the front page of the news for a data breach. These breaches are published on the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) site. Then, news agencies pick them up and share them further.
This incentivizes organizations to be on top of their security measures. As interoperability has advanced, there’s been a focus on limiting the shared data. For example, does all the data need to be stored or shared? Or do I only need to share the relevant information for the care I’m receiving? Going back to consent, patients may want to say, “I don’t want to share my mental health data because that’s sensitive. I only want to share the rest of my clinical record to receive help with my cancer, diabetes, or other conditions.”
Jacobsen: Should we be concerned about having all of our healthcare information in the cloud?
Southerland: That’s a nuanced question. Yes, we should always be concerned about our banking information, healthcare data, etc. It’s the reality of the world we live in. It’s stored on a server whenever we put something on social media.
Privacy today is very different from 80 or 100 years ago. Back then, having someone photograph you could be considered a privacy violation. Today, the game has changed.
We should have faith in the servers storing our data in the cloud. The four major cloud providers—Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and AWS—all have HITRUST certification as part of their solutions. So, when healthcare organizations leverage these cloud platforms, they incorporate these rigorous security programs into their overall security policies.
There’s even an argument that data is safer in the cloud. Cloud providers have dedicated teams to monitor and protect the data from hackers. Running your own servers—renting space at a local facility and managing the servers—takes extraordinary work, specialized skills, and knowledge. Knowing that I can rely on a provider like Microsoft Azure or AWS, knowing they operate under HITRUST guidelines, gives me more peace of mind as an IT professional working on healthcare solutions involving protected health information.
Jacobsen: How does IHE’s work impact healthcare providers and patient care?
Southerland: There are a lot of different use cases here. We’ve discussed providers having the right information at the right time. Doctors often discuss relevant information—they don’t need too much information. Too much information is almost worse than not having any at all. Often, clinicians will push it aside and start over because it’s information overload.
They need to get an understanding of where their patient is. Not only do they need to understand the clinical aspects of the patient, but this is also where we’re starting to see interoperability in IHE help. We need to start looking at other buckets of data, such as social determinants of health. For example, what social factors are happening in the patient’s life? Do they have financial or other daily stresses?
We know that stress, in general, can negatively affect health. Are they in an abusive situation? That’s going to impact their overall health. Do they lack access to exercise facilities or healthy food in their neighborhood, especially in impoverished areas? These factors play a strong role in a person’s overall health. IHE and other standards organizations focus on social determinants of health and other types of healthcare data that contribute to whole-person care.
Jacobsen: What is North America Connectathon Week, and why is it significant for healthcare IT?
Southerland: This coming year it’s happening in Toronto in February. It’s a week-long event where healthcare IT vendors come together. These vendors provide solutions for doctors, provider organizations, and hospitals. During the week, they test interoperability between their systems based on IHE profiles. I’ve been attending these events for 15+ years.
It’s a robust testing environment. There are testing monitors who validate system transactions, and there’s also great interaction between vendors. It’s the best quality assurance (QA) software testing lab globally for interoperability. Solving problems through emails or scheduling conference calls can take weeks or months. At Connectathon, everyone is in the same room. You have focused time to solve the same problems in minutes to hours.
There’s such a strong sense of collaboration at Connectathon Week. You have companies that are normally competitors working together. That’s the goal—we’re looking past market competition because if we can’t make our systems interoperable, we all fail. There isn’t one big health record system that will take over the country or the world. We all have to interoperate, and that collaboration is key to success.
Southerland: There’s also much other content there that talks about healthcare events and initiatives, like TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement), a national health information network initiative in the U.S. Connectathon Week is also international. For example, we have members and participants from Europe – France, Germany, Japan, and others – sharing their initiatives so we can learn from other parts of the world.
I’m in the U.S., so that’s where my primary focus is, but I want to know what’s happening globally because we are all trying to solve many of the same problems.
Jacobsen: What is the Connectathon seal? How does this have significance for military vendors?
Southerland: The Connectathon seal has been in the works for quite some time. It’s a recent certification that we’ve just introduced. If you look back at the history of IHE Connectathons, which started in the early 2000s, they began as part of a grassroots testing initiative to bring systems together, as we discussed earlier. Over the years, the events have become more robust and have moved toward a more formal conformity assessment approach.
In IHE we actually developed a conformity assessment scheme about 10 years ago. I’ve always seen this program as a sort of stepping stone to the new Connectathon Seal. It incorporated ISO certification processes, and the Seal builds on that. The idea was to give more substance to interoperability testing
The Connectathon seal takes this to the next level. It gives vendors something to put on their product that says, “I went through a rigorous interoperability testing process. I did all the required things. I passed the tests, and my system is ready to go.” This allows vendors to make a statement “about their product. When a provider organization, such as a hospital, is purchasing an EHR, lab system, or other healthcare technology, they can have confidence that this system has base-level interoperability capabilities.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on how IHE interacts with healthcare providers, patients, and business organizations to overcome barriers in data sharing while ensuring security and privacy, as discussed earlier? You mentioned that it’s not just data in the cloud that’s stolen but data in general, especially in today’s information era.
Southerland: There are many ways we could approach this topic. One of the biggest challenges is consumer access to data and data access for treatment. HIPAA regulations define different “purposes of use.” For example, HIPAA provides treatment-based access to data, as well as access for research and other healthcare industry reasons.
Consumer access, on the other hand, is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC governs consumer apps, while HIPAA governs healthcare apps. There are different actors in this space, and they face barriers. The barriers faced by a healthcare provider differ from those faced by an individual patient or a large organization.
A lot of work has been done to bridge the gap and protect patient data. As a patient consumer, this ensures that I can’t just do wildcard searches and get a content match by guessing someone’s name or address. Much discussion and work has been done within the U.S. national exchange frameworks, like CommonWell Health Alliance and TEFCA to address this.
Scaling back to the broader part of your question, IHE does well in partnering with local and national governments. We have something called national extensions built into our Profile templates. These Profiles are implementation guides for healthcare standards. To clarify, IHE doesn’t create healthcare standards; We provide implementation guidance on how to use existing standards to solve interoperability problems.
We approach this from an international perspective, but the national extension sections within the Profiles allow for further customization based on a particular region’s needs. For example, due to different governmental policies, France might use different healthcare code sets than the U.S. – IHE allows for that flexibility through national extensions. We’ve also created regional deployment domains that oversee deployments in various countries.
Here in the U.S., we have a group called the Sequoia Project, established as the RCE—recognized coordinating entity—for TEFCA. I’m sorry; I know a lot of acronyms.
Jacobsen: That’s right. IT folks love acronyms.
Southerland: I spent a lot of time programming and grew up in that world. Now I’ve moved out of it, but I still need acronyms. The Sequoia Project is responsible for delivering the TEFCA program in the U.S., and they partner with IHE USA and IHE International to help with that. TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement) is the Federated National Exchange Program, and it’s all built on IHE profiles.
Other elements are incorporated, but the foundation is IHE profiles. Within TEFCA, there’s something called Qualified Health Information Networks (QHINs), which basically operate as health information exchange (HIE) networks participating within TEFCA. So far, seven organizations have been designated to serve in this role. These networks undergo rigorous testing and certification processes to ensure they’re able to safely and effectively exchange data with other QHINs. They have participants that share data through their QHIN, and the QHINs acts as a gateway to exchange data across the broader ecosystem.
The system-to-system and gateway-to-gateway connections are all built on IHE profiles. So, to answer your question about how IHE helps with this, we partner with regional and local deployments to promote and advance the use of our profiles.
Jacobsen: Now, this isn’t necessarily positively framed; it is neutrally framed with the appropriate acronyms, initialisms, organization names, and real-world examples. What about the entities that are predatory when it comes to user data, organizational data, or patient data? What are the most significant and dangerous predatory actors in this space?
Southerland: That’s a good question. I’m considering how to phrase it carefully.
There are organizations out there looking to misuse healthcare data for all kinds of fraud. This is common knowledge. For instance, Medicare fraud is a big issue. In some cases, claims are filed, and payouts are made for deceased patients. Fraud like this happens.
Trust frameworks are among the mechanisms that IHE and others have built to protect against such fraud. Carequality is a great example. When you sign up to participate in Carequality, you become a network steward with legal obligations to protect the data. Given the context of this interview and its focus on IHE, that’s probably as far as I want to go, but it’s an important question.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts or feelings based on today’s conversation?
Southerland: Today I think we should have discussed the significance of healthcare interoperability. We touched on it briefly, but I’d like to expand on that.
Jacobsen: What is the potential now, and why must we focus on it?
Southerland: First, it’s important to understand that it has much potential. I would have said the same thing if you had asked me 15 years ago. But what does that mean? It means there are still many challenges to overcome in healthcare IT and interoperability. We’ve already overcome a lot, but there’s more to go.
I break it down into three stages. The first stage is building systems that can collect data. The second stage is integrating those systems—data from disparate systems and systems from different vendors and companies. In the third stage, we analyze the data, apply big data concepts, and use it on a population health scale. This is where we get into clinical research, curing diseases, and identifying trends over large populations. We can use that information to set the next generation of best practices in healthcare.
In the next 10 years, I believe we’ll see a major focus on the whole person. We talk about social determinants of health, and that’s one piece of it, but more is needed as a patient; more is needed to know what medication fits what clinical problem. I need to factor in all the other elements of my life. What’s my diet like? What’s my environment? My doctor might ask me questions during my visit, but the system must be more comprehensive and cohesive to collect and use all the facts relevant to my care. You go from one specialist to another—an orthopedist and a chiropractor—and get different answers. It leaves the patient confused about what’s best for them.
Interoperability with all that data together in a way that makes sense to the patient. It will enable patients to have better conversations with their doctors, and it will enable doctors to make better assessments because they’ll have access to the relevant data. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve in healthcare interoperability: it’s having the right data at the right time for the right patient, ultimately to improve health outcomes.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Adam Potash is a trained chef and health coach passionate about transforming lives through sustainable weight loss and nutrition. A graduate of Johnson & Wales University, his journey began with a love for cooking and evolved into a mission to help others achieve optimal health. After culinary success working with elite clients, Adam pursued health and nutrition studies, creating The Approach, a sustainable weight loss program. Combining intermittent fasting, balanced eating, and emotional support, Adam has helped over 10,000 clients lose weight and improve their health. His goal is to empower others to lead healthier, happier, and more confident lives.
Potash shares insights into his journey from culinary school to promoting healthier lifestyles. Inspired by witnessing his grandmother’s health decline due to poor nutrition and excessive medication, Potash emphasizes the transformative power of food. He highlights the Mediterranean diet, intermittent fasting, and prioritizing fresh, simple ingredients as keys to sustainable health. Potash criticizes food fads and restrictive diets, advocating for lifestyle changes over quick fixes. Working with athletes and private clients, he focuses on balanced meals that fuel performance. His advice includes avoiding grazing, eating nutrient-dense vegetables, and cooking with love to enhance health and enjoyment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Adam Potash or Potash. How do you say that properly: “Pot-Ash”?
Adam Potash: You said it right the first time.
Jacobsen: You have this orientation toward health, nutrition, and weight loss. So, how did your grandmother’s story of illness build up and lead to this particular concern about health and weight loss? Now, that one’s straightforward. So, the term illness can be ambiguous.
Is it cancer, or is it an improper diet? Therefore, is the person physically ill due to lifestyle habits, or is this normal aging combined with other factors? Present that story to me because I think you’re onto something.
Potash: Right, it could be a combination of a few different things—age, illness, and poor nutrition. Listen, in my field, we tackle everything from a nutritional aspect first and foremost.
And yes, you’re right. This is what prompted my journey toward getting healthier myself. Seeing my grandmother deteriorate, for lack of a better word, with one medication, then another, and another to counteract the previous one became this big rabbit hole. I was younger at the time—I must have been 17 or 18 years old when she passed—but I saw this whole thing transpire and said, “There’s got to be a better way.”
Shortly after she passed, I enrolled in culinary school because I wanted to do something related to food. That eventually transitioned into cooking healthy food and cooking for pro athletes and others. I wanted to make everyone around me healthier, and the best way to do that was through food. That happened over a few years—cooking, cooking healthy, and eventually helping people transition to better health.
Jacobsen: Quick question on personal interest stuff.
I worked in restaurants. I used to work in four simultaneously, then did janitorial work overnight for two. Those were seven-day weeks, putting in nine hours a day. It was an intensive time, but I got to see a lot of different styles in how people run restaurants—from pubs to more bistro-style places and an Italian-Jewish-owned and run restaurant.
It could have been more fine dining, but it was aimed in that direction. So, where did you get your experience in terms of seeing a variety of restaurants? How did you observe operations, the quality of materials used to prepare meals, and their health standards? What did you see that made you think, “I could use those ideas a la carte and develop my program”?
Potash: Yes, my career started as a server, working in the front of the house. But I always had this crazy interest in the back of the house.
The short story of how it all transpired is this: I went on a boating trip with the chef of a place where I was a server. It was called Gordon Biersch.
It was a brewery. The chef asked a few of the servers if they wanted to go on a fishing trip. I said, “Sure, I’ll go.” It was my day off. I caught the only fish that day, and it was this grouper.
It was about a 24-pound grouper, right? All day, we’re out there—nothing, nothing. Finally, we’re about a mile from shore, so I hook this grouper.
Of course, whoever’s closest to the line gets it. I fought it for about an hour. The whole scene was there, and we returned to the restaurant. The chef cooked it up in five, six, or maybe seven different ways. From that moment, I was hooked. That was my turning point when I decided, “I’m going to be a chef.”
From catch to feast in a matter of an hour was unbelievable. That started everything.
And, listen, going back to your question about seeing the operations of things—nothing was ever healthy. No matter where you went—this is going back 20 or 25 years—nothing was ever healthy.
When I started cooking for myself, I limited so many ingredients. I cooked. Julia Child has a quote—I’m butchering it, but it’s something like this: “If you cook simple and basic, everything is going to be good.” That’s basically what it comes down to.
If you cook with good ingredients—fresh ingredients—it’s going to come out well. You don’t need to complicate things. That’s the lesson I learned from a young age and as a young chef: make things simple and make them taste good.
Jacobsen: What makes a simple and good meal?
Potash: It sounds like a different question, but we have so many options for food in North America—particularly in the United States—ranging from processed food to unprocessed food, high-calorie food to low-calorie food, nutrient-dense food to not-so-nutrient-dense food, and so on.
How do you consider this when you’re running a restaurant? You’re saying, “This is the menu. This is the schema for what I want people to consume at my business or restaurant.”
I will give you the cheesy, cliché answer: it honestly comes down to love. If you’re putting love into your dishes, it will come out good.
I still cook for parties, private clients, and events. My ingredients and meals involve less than 30 different steps. I use five steps, but those are done perfectly—they’re seasoned right, taste good, and that’s it. If you can do that, you can’t lose.
Jacobsen: What are those five steps?
Potash: Well, obviously, it starts with good, fresh ingredients—whether it’s freshly caught fish or something similar.
Then, it’s about cooking it properly. For example, I cook a lot pan-seared and then finish it in the oven. Not to get too technical, but I do that because I want a nice sear and crust, and then I want it to cook fully from a convection style.
Cook it all the way through or cook it from a broader perspective rather than just using direct heat. That’s how I do most of my cooking. Letting things rest is also very important. Many people cook and then want to eat immediately, but you must let things relax for a moment.
Always have a good sauce. If you ever come to one of my parties or to someone I’ve cooked for, they’ll tell you That sauces are legit. A good sauce doesn’t have to be unhealthy. It could be something like chimichurri, pesto, or similar. A nice sauce complements the dish beautifully.
And honestly, the last step is presentation. Everybody eats with their eyes first, so you must put a little effort into how the food looks.
Jacobsen: Is that called plating? Is that the proper word for it?
Potash: Yes, plating—exactly. I always go with a nice white plate. In my house, we have clean, white plates. It’s like a blank canvas.
Jacobsen: So, let’s say you have this simplified method. When looking at the North American palate and the ingredients available, what do you consider some of the more nutritious meals? How can people incorporate that into healthier living, even if it’s not necessarily a formal meal plan?
Potash: Yes, so we all know by now that the Mediterranean diet will be the healthiest, right? You can’t get away from that concept. It’s about using local ingredients and focusing on a pescatarian-type diet.
I base my cooking on this. I was born and raised in Miami, South Florida, so we always had fresh, local fish—whether it was mahi, grouper, snapper, or something else. That’s the healthiest way to start meal prepping or planning.
It doesn’t have to be fish, but locally sourced-ingredients are always better.
Now, intermittent fasting—I follow a pescatarian Mediterranean diet and practice intermittent fasting. The baseline is a 16-hour fast daily, though I can go up to 20 hours depending on the day. I’m not too strict about it; it’s more of a range.
Jacobsen: What benefits do you see from intermittent fasting?
Potash: Oh my gosh, the sky’s the limit—it offers endless benefits.
It can improve your skin, clear up acne, make your hair fuller, and strengthen your nails—those things people first notice. But it doesn’t stop there. It also provides digestive benefits and helps women dealing with menopause, menopause-related weight gain, and PCOS.
Truthfully, the list goes on. Doctors are now even using intermittent fasting to treat cancer patients because it generates new, fresh cells in the body and removes old, damaged ones.
The benefits—if you’re not intermittent fasting—you’re honestly not feeling or looking your best. It gives your body the rest that it needs.
Jacobsen: Now, when two individuals look at diets, there will be skeptics and even cynics. How do we separate good diets from faulty ones? For instance, some diets are more about branding, like an all-red-meat diet, compared to the Mediterranean diet, which intuitively makes more sense because it has more balance overall.
As an expert, I believe the Mediterranean diet provides a better presentation, covers more food groups, and has a broader palate. How do you ensure there’s enough rigour to prevent a diet from being just a fad with yo-yo effects and short-term results?
Potash: What I always recommend—and for anyone thinking about a diet—is to look at how restrictive it is. For example, you mentioned the carnivore diet or the keto diet. Those immediately become extremely restrictive. Anytime something is highly restrictive, it gets categorized as a “diet.”
Usually, those are short-term and sustainable. You might see results immediately, but sustainability is where it fails. That’s when you get into the yo-yo diet effect—yes, it worked, but you can’t maintain it forever.
On the other hand, when we talk about intermittent fasting or the Mediterranean diet, these are lifestyles, not diets. They’re not restrictive. For example, I go out to eat; I enjoy food with my friends, buddies, and wife—we’re always eating. But it’s good food, healthy food. I never feel restricted or deprived by what I’m choosing.
I’m not putting myself in a bucket of, “Oh my gosh, I can only eat meat,” or, “I have to avoid carbs completely.” That’s not sustainable long-term.
Jacobsen: Could someone potentially do a short-term radical shift and then transition to something more sustainable? Say they want rapid changes first but then move to a longer-term solution. Is that possible, or is that too unreasonable for most people?
Potash: Yes, so I was going to say—it’s generally unreasonable if you do it yourself. When you’re on your own, you become your critic, and there’s no accountability piece to it. You start making up your own rules as you go along.
I’ve been doing this for over 15 years, and that’s what I see people do. They make up their own rules. For example, I know people who do alternate-day fasting. They start applying new rules like, “Oh, I’ll do it tomorrow,” or, “I’ll do it the next day,” or, “I didn’t do it today, but that’s okay.”
There needs to be more consistency and a base to work from, and that’s where it falls apart.
There’s no baseline. So, we teach the 16:8 method because it is the most consistent thing you can do. It’s not depriving or restrictive. You’re eating within an 8-hour window, which you can do daily.
Another great thing about an intermittent fasting schedule is that you can shift it. Some days, you might do 16 hours; other days, you might do 18. You can adjust it according to your schedule. This makes it much more of a lifestyle than a strict, harsh diet.
That’s my approach—set a baseline as a floor, then give yourself a range. If I can go a little longer the next day, no problem. Have an extra cup of coffee and keep going.
Jacobsen: What do you find people typically lack nutritionally—both macronutrients and micronutrients?
Potash: As an executive chef who runs restaurants, I can tell you that people often need to catch up on the basics. Running a restaurant is no easy job—it’s consistently high-stress. Transitioning from front-of-house to back-of-house surprised some people because you deal with difficult customers in the front. Still, the back-of-house can be even more intense. Every position, aside from prep work before service, is constantly stressful.
Jacobsen: So, what macronutrients and micronutrients are people typically missing when looking at nutrition? How can they fill those gaps?
Potash: Listen, we’ve gotten so far away from vegetables. Even when we consume vegetables at restaurants, it’s often not in their purest or healthiest form. The trend now is Brussels sprouts, right? But those sprouts are usually deep-fried and covered in something unhealthy.
We’ve moved so far away from basic, nutritious vegetables. Often, vegetables are treated as an afterthought—the last thing people eat. If you’re at a restaurant, you’re typically filling up on steak or mashed potatoes first. If there’s room left, maybe you’ll eat the asparagus.
My rule of thumb is to start with the good stuff—the more nutritious items. Fill up on those first, then move on to the other things. Save the carbs for last, so you’re not eating as much. Carbs, for the most part, have very little nutritional benefit.
This doesn’t mean vegetables must be plain or steamed, but we must return to basics. Everyone knows about the trend of fried Brussels sprouts. My advice is to go back to simple, clean vegetables. That’s one of my biggest tips when it comes to nutrition.
Jacobsen: What’s the most extreme individual food fad you’ve seen outside of fried Brussels sprouts?
Potash: Food fad? That’s an interesting one. Food fads are everywhere. Fried calamari has been around for quite a while now, especially with all the different sauces—it will never go away.
There are so many unhealthy food fads. For example, many steak places pop up everywhere, and it’s the same no matter where you go. There’s no creativity anymore when it comes to these steakhouses.
I have four different steakhouses within a three-mile radius of my house. And they all serve the same thing—you get your asparagus, filet, and potatoes. Nothing stands out or feels creative anymore.
There needs to be more creativity, at least where I live in South Florida. People in the kitchen seem afraid to try something new.
Jacobsen: When cooking for athletes and celebrities, how does that differ in terms of their requests per meal or meal plan? How different are they from the rest of us?
Potash: Not much, believe it or not. These athletes—I don’t want to say “basic” because that sounds negative—but they are basic because they focus on health. They want food to help them perform better on the field, on the pitch, or wherever they compete.
They’re open about food. They want something simple and convenient and don’t want to use their brainpower worrying about nutrition. They leave that to someone like me.
My job is to ensure that they’re getting well-balanced meals that provide everything they need to fuel their bodies. I’m not measuring macronutrients to the gram, but I understand how to create meals that include a variety of nutrients—the full”rainbow” of food.
They want to focus on their performance: running faster, hitting harder, or excelling in their sport. The last thing they want to worry about is their food. They leave it to professionals to ensure they’re eating right.
Honestly, I haven’t encountered too many picky athletes. They want to know they’re eating well and fueling their bodies.
Jacobsen: So, what do you see as the major health issue for North America? Many of your clients have lost weight significantly since starting this meal plan and program. Beyond the obvious issues of being overweight or having a higher-than-healthy BMI for their height, what do you notice coming up?
Potash: Listen, we’ve been getting more overweight year after year for the last 100 years. A few factors contribute to this.
Number one is breakfast. Kellogg’s introduced breakfast as a marketing concept, adding a meal we weren’t eating before.
Then, if you go to the grocery store these days, everything is snack-sized—snack this, snack that. We’ve become tremendous grazers.
The problem is that our stomachs aren’t designed like those of cows or horses for daily grazing. Our bodies want to digest food and then rest, but we’ve completely eliminated that rest period.
Now, you eat breakfast, go to the office, and someone hands you a treat and grabs it. Then someone else has a snack at their desk, and you eat that too. It’s this constant grazing.
People think, “Oh, it’s not much. It’s just a bite.” But that grazing raises your insulin levels and doesn’t allow your digestive system to take a break.
This constant grazing leads to kidney, liver, and gallbladder issues—it overworks our entire system.
If people need to make one major health change, stop grazing. Eat your meals within a specific time frame and then be done.
Jacobsen: Are there any other areas we missed? We covered everything from restaurants, diets, food trends, and health concerns.
Potash: Yes, you touched on a lot of different points. I appreciate that.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on the interview today?
Potash: No, this was great. Whoever your readers are, it’s good they’ll get a little education from this. It’s great.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Adam, thank you so much for your time.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Updated December 26, 2024.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The conversation explores definitions and perspectives on God, blending theology, science, and philosophy. Scott Douglas Jacobsen prompts dialogue on God’s definition and role. Rick Rosner critiques traditional omnipotent concepts, suggesting godlike civilizations within the universe’s informational structure. He highlights evolution, rejecting omnipotence while speculating on advanced civilizations’ roles and time perception. Rosner argues logical principles govern existence, leaving little room for traditional deities. He finds comfort in cultural symbols like “office Jesus,” juxtaposing technology and spirituality as modern sources of solace. Donald Wayne Stoner builds a theological framework on primordial logic, equating God to the logical foundation underpinning math, quantum mechanics, and the universe. He blends Christian theology with scientific rationalism, asserting God’s omnipresence as “conscious logic.” Stoner explores humanity’s role as co-creators, emphasizing ethical, logical, and emotional dimensions of divine understanding. He critiques reductionist models, advocating for a nuanced reconciliation of science and faith. Claus Volko sees God as an abstract metaphor for the unknown, contrasting with Stoner’s detailed theological model. Volko suggests dualistic forces of life and death shape existence. Tianxi Yu incorporates Eastern philosophy, linking Taoist concepts of emptiness with the unknowable nature of God. Yu critiques Western rationalism’s limitations, advocating for embracing paradoxes and interweaving scientific insights with spiritual wisdom. The dialogue reveals shared themes: the limits of human understanding, evolving definitions of divinity, and reconciling ancient wisdom with contemporary science. Questions persist about consciousness, morality’s origins, and reconciling diverse philosophical traditions. Ultimately, participants offer diverse but complementary perspectives, enriching the discourse on humanity’s search for meaning and the divine.
Keywords: Evolution and teleology, God and intentionality, Love and trust dynamics, Principles of existence, Scientific and logical perspectives, Stability and order in relationships, Willful creator concept.
Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What seems like the easiest first definition of God to you? This can include a pivot into an inability to define or an ineffability, too.
Rick Rosner: The first step, therefore, is to posit that God, understood as an omniscient, omnipotent being, might be impossible. I doubt such an entity could exist. The next step is to hypothesize what could exist. We know we exist.
We know the universe exists and is approximately 13.8 billion years old. It is even older in the context of potential multiverses, and there may be no limit to the size or number of possible universes. Within these vast possibilities, beings and civilizations of unimaginable age could arise. They could achieve extraordinary levels of complexity, power, and information processing capacity with enough time.
Thus, one could imagine entities or civilizations that may exist or have existed with a scale and power that would appear god-like to us. Within our universe, human civilization is about 10,000 years old. However, life could have emerged on another planet a billion, two billion, or even five billion years ago. An old civilization would have an immense head start, potentially becoming god-like after everything it has learned over billions of years.
Donald Wayne Stoner: 1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
Therefore, by inclusion (the effective minor premise):
God is also: That which also brought us into existence.
Therefore, by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):
2) God is also: That which is responsible for our personal existence.
More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”
To focus this definition more precisely, I must admit that all of my beliefs (about anything) are based onat least one thing which I take on “faith” alone.To explain what I mean by this, there is a question which I have frequently asked my professional associates (usually physicists, engineers, and programmers):
“Do you know how to construct a logical proof for the validity of logic itself?”
Invariably, they have been surprised that they don’t happen to know how to do that. Logic seems to be something which normal people just seem to take for granted; so they never question it.
Is Logic really valid? How might we test it? In very general terms, there are really only two possible ways:
A) Logically: This one would be circular, hence invalid.
-or-
B) Illogically (or alogically): This simply avoids validity.
So, Logic cannot be proven to be valid.
Therefore, we must assume that Logic is either:
C) An Illusion (Any idea is as good as any other idea)
-or-
D) Primordial (It’s The self-existent source for all proofs)
I have chosen to believe that:
3) logic is primordial
Logic happens to be one of those things which, as I emphasized above, I take on faith alone. Choosing (D) over (C) seems like an obvious choice to me; and having now made that choice, I have committed to the position that Logic must be primordial (3), and that it is, therefore, self existent.
Having thus accepted “primordial logic” (3), I can, next, derive:
4) Mathematics
A quite detailed and formal logical proof for the validity of math, has been provided by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. More detail can be found here:
An extremely informal “proof” (it’s very brief, illustrative, and also a cheating* short-cut) is presented here:
Nearly all computers could, in theory, be constructed from logic gates alone. (In principle, they could be constructed using nothing but combinations of 2-input NAND gates.) So, anything those computers can do, could, in principle, be done with logic alone. This includes just about anything which is mathematical.
The key takeaway, here, is that “math” is just a derivative of “logic.” Nothing “new” has really been added (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increasingly complex, but still completely-logical, procedures).
Given “math” (4), we now have all we need to construct:
5) Quantum Mechanics
“Real” particles do some very strange things. In fact, what they do is so weird (e.g. one single particle existing in two different places at the same time) that it is frequently claimed that the actual “physical particles” themselves, don’t really need to exist, nor does the “space,” through which those particles move. The math, alone, is all that is really necessary. Seriously!
For example, see this source here:
“The only way we can explain this pattern is that each particle is a sum – a superposition – of two paths, one going through the left slit and one through the right. So why not just say that the particle goes both ways? There are two reasons I don’t like this phrase. One is that a superposition of two paths is not something in space. It belongs in an abstract mathematical structure called a Hilbert space. It just has no analogue in physical space. This is why we can’t find good words to describe it. It doesn’t belong in the world we know; it’s something else entirely.”
Warning: The link below (to the above quotation) may only allow one viewing before it blocks further access.
Back when I was an undergrad physics student, one of my professors “joked” that the “particles, themselves” probably didn’t really need to exist, that the strange math alone would be enough to construct our world, exactly like we see it; but that “pretending” there were actual particles, just made things impossible to imagine.
I didn’t believe him at the time, but, like my professor, I eventually chose to “believe” that the “irrational appearing theoretical particles” were less “real” than the math, which correctly predicted the behavior, which I could actually observe in my experiments.
The key takeaway here, is that “this world” is made of nothing more than “quantum mechanical” rules, which, in turn, are constructed from math, alone; which, in turn, is nothing more than “logic.” Nothing “new” has really been added (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increased stacking of operations, all of which are still completely-logical, procedures).
And given that both “logic” and “math” have always been operational, everywhere in the universe, ever since the “Big Bang” we have a solid foundation for Quantum Mechanics. So, given “Q.M.” (5), we should now have everything we need to “construct” (bring into existence):
6) The Physical Universe
Here is where it starts to get fun: Starting with the Universe, and working backwards, down the causality stack, we have:
The physical universe (6) …
Comprising Q,M, (5) …
Comprising Math (4) …
Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …
… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
From this, it appears that:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Here, both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3), are defined as the single primordial sourcewhich produces the universe.
We could try to avoid this conclusion by asserting that “God produced Logic,” but then we would have to ask whether this was done: A) Logically -or- B) Illogically. So, we still seem to be at the primordial bottom here.
Alternately, we could argue that both God and Logic exist side by side, on the same, primordial, bottom level. This brings up the need for a “context” in which the two could interact, which, in turn, brings up the need for an additional “logical creator” to create that extra context, ad infinitum.
Evidently, we are stuck with God (1) sharing the exact same identity with Primordial Logic (3). This causes a problem: Since our normal understanding of the term “God” is so very differentfrom our normal understanding what of “logic” is, this may require a bit of explaining:
In the argument above, we presumed that “logic” had existed, and operated, everywhere in the universe, during the billions of years preceding the very first sentient creatures. Although we normally presume this to be the case, have we tested it?
Can “logic,” itself, operate in a complete vacuum? … or in the absence of a physical mind (maybe either organic or electronic)? What kind of working mind could possibly have been present to have performed the necessary “math” to cause the Q.M. event responsible for the “Big Bang?”
Although there are several theoretical models for what might cause consciousness to happen, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness, the traditional, most common models, claim it is emergentfrom matter (when sufficient complexity is present). There is a large amount of weird speculation involved in how or why this is supposed to happen; but, so far, no experiment has shown this to be workable.
However, there is a new, cutting-edge, scientific field of study, involving theoretical Q.M. models, which challenges this old, and, so far, non-productive, “consciousness” model: it’s called “Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)” in the above link.
Over the last few decades, I have been following the work of Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who, together, have been developing the science behind this model.
Instead of accepting the theory that awareness emerges from complexity in matter, their experiments suggest that, in our real world, “consciousness is a fundamental property, which is part of the logical and mathematical structure of the entire universe.” **
Therefore, our logical conclusion (above): (That God (1), and Logic (3), are both valid descriptions of the “creator”) starts to sound less like an absurdity, and more like the first connection between otherwise-sterile science, and the “spiritual existence” which we all know we experience (made famous by Descartes’ famous realization: “I think, therefore, I am.”)
I, personally, believe that this new theory of consciousness will, eventually, replace the present standard scientific model. In any case, for the the present discussion, I will be using it as my working theory.
It has not escaped my attention that this theory brings “a universe filled with otherwise-sterile logic,” into close alignment with the more traditional descriptions of God (1 & 2).
Let’s see where this working theory takes us:
Starting with the above “backwards” causality sequence:
The physical universe (6),
Comprising Q,M, (5).
Comprising Math (4),
Comprising Primordial Logic (3)
… but working in the normal, forward direction, we now have:
In the beginning was primordial, self existent, Logic (3).
This Logic (3) caused Math (4), which caused Q.M. (5),
which created the physical Universe (6) (caused by 1 & 3,
and actually comprising 1 & 3), and also “us” ourselves
(who seem to share logical reasoning, and likely also self
awareness) with That which must also potentially assume
responsibility for our actions (2).
I find it interesting that: by critically examining the validity of Logic itself; and by translating the original Greek Biblical word “λογος” (logos) as “Logic” (the way Plato and Aristotle probably would have used that word — instead of how most modern theologians usually translate it); and by taking it in combination with the (above) cutting-edge theory, we are now able to verify, logically, some critical parts of the first three verses of St. John’s Gospel.
For comparison, here is how Young’s Literal Translation of those three verses would have read, if he had translated ” λογος” as “Logic” instead of as “Word”:
In the beginning was the Logic,
and the Logic was with God,
and the Logic was God;
this one was in the beginning with God;
all things through him did happen,
and without him happened
not even one thing that hath happened.
So, in conclusion, my working definition for God is:
(1) That which brought our universe into existence,
and by inclusion, also ourselves into existence;
and therefore also, by causal extension:
(2) That which is responsible forour personal existence.
(More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”)
or:
(3) Primordial Logic
One last thought:
St. John’s Gospel is likely to be worth some further study.
Claus Volko, M.D.: For me the term God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand. Anything that can’t be explored by the scientific method can be attributed to God. What exactly God is, remains unknown. We can only speculate about it.
Tianxi Yu: In Western religious perspectives, God is considered omnipotent, and all things are created by God. However, from the viewpoint of Chinese culture, humans evolved naturally, and the concept of God is a figment of the imagination that arose from people in the old world trying to understand unknown phenomena. Personally, I am inclined to believe in the existence of an omnipotent God, but God is not considered supreme. When you describe an object, it acquires certain attributes. If it has certain attributes, there must be corresponding opposite attributes. For example, if you define Audrey as “beautiful,” it implies that you think other women are less so. But if the median level of female attractiveness is closer to Natasha’s, Audrey would not be defined as “beautiful.” Therefore, when you define God as omnipotent, God essentially becomes a slightly more powerful human, indirectly acknowledging that God evolved from humans. Thus, the supreme existence I believe in is the indescribable “emptiness,” which transcends God. It cannot be defined or described.
Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?
Rosner: I see the universe as an information-processing entity. Quantum mechanics suggests that the universe operates on probabilities and incomplete information.
On average, the universe increases in complexity over time, leading to a greater amount of information and order as time progresses. The emergence of beings within the universe might be connected to this increase in order. I am proposing that sufficiently long-lived civilizations may become involved in the universe’s workings.
With that in mind, our civilization may find out if these ideas hold any truth in the future. A future human, transhuman, or posthuman civilization will have to decide whether to attempt to contact other civilizations which might be found closer to the galaxy’s center. At the same time, perhaps contradictorily, I think civilizations generally have more important endeavours than seeking out others. This challenges many alien invasion scenarios that assume aliens would come to Earth because they need something. That is improbable because any civilization powerful enough to reach us would be powerful enough to create whatever they need near their location, even simulating other civilizations if necessary.
Therefore, there is no compelling reason to seek out and conquer other civilizations. The only reason to contact them would be to gain knowledge, assuming they are more advanced than us. More advanced civilizations would tend to be non-malevolent. Admittedly, this is speculative thinking on my part. I am exploring these ideas as they come to mind.
Why would they be interested in us? If they are powerful enough to do whatever they want relative to us, they likely do not care about what we do. That is my guess—that civilizations tend to gravitate towards the galactic center. Or, as we are observing in an early form, much of a civilization’s focus is on information processing. I suspect that if a civilization wants to engage in this on a vast scale, it might be more efficient to do so closer to the center of a galaxy.
If I were to construct a scenario, it would involve a civilization facing decisions about whether to seek out other, more advanced civilizations in the hope of gaining knowledge from them. The counterargument is the risk of being wrong and facing potential destruction if they view us as competition. This answers your question.
Stoner: Following from my understanding of God: Probably both.
But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe,
rather than as its omnipresent creator (“conscious logic itself”)
I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.
Volko: People seek God. They want to be good people and obey God’s laws, and since God has never come down to earth and told people what his laws are, they have to find out for themselves.
I don’t think that God seeks people. In my opinion God is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.
Yu: As I mentioned in response to the first question, the God has evolved from human. From a human perspective, it is humans who seek God. However, as a deity, God would also desire more individuals to evolve into divine beings. Therefore, God communicates the principles of the universe to humanity through natural phenomena. Those who can decipher these divine hints often become gods themselves in the future. Thus, the relationship between God and humans is one of mutual pursuit.
Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this search of God?
Rosner: In my view, the initial realization is that one must consider the fundamental principles of existence, which are sufficiently durable and inviolable to exclude the idea of a transcendental God. By “transcendental,” I mean a God that exists beyond the principles and laws of existence itself.
Suppose this were 500 years ago, when we lacked a comprehensive understanding of the universe. In that case, proposing entities made of something greater that transcends earthly limitations might have seemed plausible. However, this is the present day. We now have a deeper understanding of what matter is made of. We have a concept of the universe’s shape and the distribution of matter within it. We also have insights into the universe’s physics and some metaphysical aspects. This does not leave room for beings that transcend the foundational principles of existence.
I mentioned earlier civilizations that could be hundreds of millions of years old. Based on what they learned over such immense periods, they might have developed entirely different modes of existence. For example, we live in linear time, but they may have discovered ways of existence that defy our current understanding of reality.
It is unlikely that civilization could figure out how to exist in two-dimensional time instead of one-dimensional time or something along those lines. However, it is possible. Regardless, no matter how advanced, any civilization would still be bound by the principles of existence, such as non-contradiction. That is the first realization.
In searching for God, one must set up the limiting case, which, in my view, is that an all-powerful or all-knowing God cannot exist. An omnipotent being did not create us. This is easier to read as an initial premise. To add a supplement, we may have been created by a not-all-powerful being.
Some thinkers, perhaps more than one, argue that this reality could be a simulation. If it is a simulation, an entity must be behind it. You then face two choices: this world is naturally emergent and evolved or a simulated one. Even in the case of a simulation, the being who created it is not omnipotent and is subject to the same fundamental limitations that apply to existence.
Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.
The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).
The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.
The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.
This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:
We just ask God for whatever help we might need.
The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.
Volko: (No answer).
Yu: The first reasonable realization in the search for God is that God communicates with humanity through various natural phenomena. For instance, the observation of apples naturally falling led to the discovery of gravity, the shape of mushrooms inspired the invention of umbrellas, and financial market indicators are used to predict economic trends. The advancement of human civilization to its current state is largely due to highly intelligent individuals who have interpreted these divine hints and guided the evolution of our society. Therefore, in our quest to findGod, it is crucial to humbly recognize that everything is under divine guidance. We must contemplate these divine signs to draw closer to God.
Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?
Rosner: Now, for the question of whether God, even when considering different types or levels of epistemology and ontology, seems knowable in principle or unknowable: Science, over the past 500 years, has been remarkably successful at discovering and explaining phenomena in a mathematical and somewhat mechanical way. We understand how things work and can express them mathematically. Still, this understanding often comes at the expense of exploring metaphysics—the “why” behind existence.
We now possess enough information and theoretical knowledge about the universe’s mechanics to address metaphysical questions. The “why” of existence is closely related to the “how,” and I believe the principles of non-contradiction in existence are such that they allow for the possibility of being. Anything not prohibited by the principles of existence can, by definition, potentially exist.
In terms of epistemology—how we acquire knowledge—it is possible to build an understanding based on these foundational ideas. While effectively explaining the “how,” science often stops short of explaining why the universe exists. Concepts such as an unstable null state, potentially loaded with energy that compels it to expand into existence, are considered. However, even in standard Big Bang theory, deeper “whys” remain unanswered. So, yes, we can explore the “whys” behind the “hows.”
Stoner: God can choose to be: knowable, unknowable, or even both simultaneously. We can observe how this might happen with a test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just
a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire
into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical
model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a
universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go
Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma? Or is it blatantly obvious? This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.
This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did. I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle): God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV)
Volko: I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is.
Yu: God is, in principle, knowable because He has evolved from the pinnacle of humankind, representing the culmination of human wisdom. Thus, humanity can understand God through observation and reasoning. The indescribable “emptiness” is an existence that transcends God, one that cannot be described or defined.
Jacobsen: Any overarching questions for the group or hopes for this discussion as we proceed?
Rosner: As for questions for the group or hopes for the discussion, God, as traditionally understood, is under scrutiny due to scientific progress. The more science explains, the less we rely on divine or supernatural explanations. In the U.S., the concept of the traditional Christian God is also challenged by the behaviour of certain groups, such as some Christians aligning with MAGA, who often act in unchristian ways. Younger generations are leaving the church in large numbers.
My question, then, is how does the concept of God survive into the future, and do we even need God for humanity to thrive? The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.
Stoner: I’m looking forward to what I expect to be a fascinating discussion!
Notes: * This “cheating” involves a slight-of-hand switch between the classical, time-dependent, clocked sequences, which are used by a computer, and the very different time-independent processes used by a human math student:
The computer, when fed the “command” N=N+1, mindlessly fetches “N,” from a memory location, increments it by “1,” and then moves the new value back into the same location from which it was originally fetched. (For simplicity, here I have omitted the middle step, where the computer “compiles” (translates and reorders) “N=N+1” to: “N, get, 1, add, N, put”)
The student sees the “equation” N=N+1, as a simultaneous, unsolvable, contradiction. (For simplicity, here I did not attempt to track the thoughts which may or may not have happened in the student’s mind.)
In spite of the differences, this computer example illustrates the causal chain, from simple logical components, to complex mathematics.
** Among the participants in this new field, is author, and Nobel Prize winning physicist, Sir Roger Penrose (who together with Dr. Stephen Hawking, predicted of the existence of Black Holes).
Also among these participants, is Penrose’s associate Dr. Stuart Hameroff, (an anesthesiologist, and physicist, who has made some fascinating discoveries regarding apparent “intelligence” in microscopic and molecular biochemistry). I’m anticipating that either these researchers, or possibly those who follow them, will eventually shed more light on this question.
A video of a discussion with Penrose and Hameroff can be found here:
Here are a few time markers for some interesting and significant statements:
0:23:55-0:25:07 Penrose says that “non-life can be “conscious.”
0:40:20-41:44 Terms: “Proto consciousness,” objective reduction (OR), and “Orchestrated OR.
1:16:55 Briefly discusses the six major competing theories of consciousness
1:36:00 Hameroff says that, “Consciousness is actually a fundamental property; it goes all the way down to the structure of the universe.”
Yu: God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.
Jacobsen: A varied style of talking about God and diverse presentation style. But they are in character! So, patterns are emerging. How has your personal view of God changed over time if at all?
Rosner: When I was a little kid, I assumed I believed in God, but as I grew older, I started reading physics books—at least introductory ones like Time-Life Books, The Universe, not advanced physics books but ones aimed at the general public. I was reading these books by around 1968 or so, maybe 1970. That was when the Big Bang theory was becoming widely accepted.
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. By the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory had largely been established as the leading cosmological model. I took that as my framework for understanding the universe.
Of course, I had questions, the kind a child might have—like what created the thing that the Big Bang originated from? But I wasn’t considering those questions in terms of God.
I attended Sunday school, but I don’t remember ever believing in the traditional depiction of God as an old white man with a beard and flowing robes. That concept didn’t resonate with me. I didn’t start seriously contemplating the metaphysics of God until my early 20s, and even then, only sporadically.
When I considered the structure of the universe, I might occasionally entertain ideas that allowed for the existence of God. However, those thoughts never lasted long before I found inconsistencies or logical flaws. I distinctly remember being in my college cafeteria during these moments. I did a lot of thinking over meals because I ate frequently—about seven meals a day—just trying to bulk up. I worked as a bouncer and wanted to build muscle, so the cafeteria became a place for eating and reflecting.
One time, for about 10 minutes, I considered that mystical phenomena might fit within the rules of existence. But I quickly dismissed the idea while eating red Jell-O, fried chicken, or mulligatawny soup. This dish combines leftovers from previous meals with broth.
Aside from those fleeting moments, I’ve consistently believed that the concept of God doesn’t align with the principles of existence as I understand them. The universe doesn’t require an omnipotent creator in the background.
Simply put, my views on God haven’t changed much in decades.
Donald Wayne Stoner: Like everyone else, I started life at a very young age, with virtually no understanding at all about anything (religious or otherwise). It would be fair to say that everything I now believe is a result of change since that time. Also, back then (several years after WWII), topics like religion and politics were considered to be very much more private than they are today. It was also generally believed that it was not expedient to expose young children to that sort of subject matter. This may have retarded the accumulation of religious opinions in my development.
However, from the beginning, I was a curious child (a real troublemaker, and also an “escape artist” in training). Disassembling the latches on my crib was the first step toward enlarging my world. Protecting me from accidental injury, soon became a full-time job for my mother. Fortunately, she had the required skills: Her previous work experience had been as a cyclotron operator at a military base in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; so keeping me alive until adulthood was within her capabilities.
My father and mother met at a Church in Tennessee, while he was temporarily stationed at that same base. Later, he was transferred to Los Alamos, to help Robert Oppenheimer with his part of the same project. After the transfer, my parents continued their courtship by mail until the end of the war. (They were both the sort of people who might have expected troublemakers for children, and also the sort who might have once caused trouble for their own parents.)
After the war, they married and started a family. Of course we all attended Church. My sisters and I were exposed to what was, at that time, typical for religious instruction: dumbed-down, preschool-level, Sunday school. I learned to sing songs with mysterious phrases like, “Little ‘once’ to him belong,” and “I will make you fishers ‘Amen’,” (while wildly swinging open safety-pins tied to strings taped to dowel sticks, for “fishing poles”).
During this time, I was told that someone called “God” (or maybe “Jesus”) had made me (and everything else). I also remember having the vague impression that “God” was significantly bigger than my parents. None of this bothered me too much. It made sense because, by this time, my mom had showed me how stuff like crayons, scissors, tape, and glue, all worked. I’d also watched my dad make things in the garage. I figured I understood how things were “made” well enough.
When I wasn’t “learning about God” in Church, or disassembling my crib or playpen, I was usually disassembling my toys, my sisters’ toys, or other things around the house, to see how they worked. The gears, levers, shafts, and wheels all made perfect sense. (The occasional negative reaction from my sisters and parents was somewhat harder to understand.)
The very most fascinating thing I ever encountered was well beyond the reach of my exploratory capabilities, and it did not seem to be mechanical at all. I remember, at about the age of two or three, staring out through my own eyes, at nothing in particular, and thinking how very strange it was that I could perceive the world around me, and how strange it was that I was aware of my own existence. In this case, there was something different about the “device” involved; it wasn’t just more complex; it seemed to operate on a completely different principle – one that I still needed to understand.
Of course I didn’t stay three forever. By about the first grade, something had changed: I had tried inviting Jesus into my heart. No one had asked me to do it; in fact, I don’t remember anyone ever suggesting that it was a thing a person could do. In Sunday school we kids were all in the middle of singing a song called, “Come Into My Heart Lord Jesus;” and for some reason, I just decided it would be cool if I tried really meaning the words while I sang them – so I did – and He Did. I won’t try to explain how I knew. Any string of words I could possibly chain together would fail to catch the experience.
Shortly after that, I started having questions: First, I happened to notice that the Church and the school disagreed on how long it took God to create the universe. I asked my dad, and he told me that my grandpa (Peter W. Stoner) had written a book that explained how the Bible had originally been written in an ancient language and that it had not been translated perfectly. I said OK and went on with my life, completely missing out on my first possible crisis. (In hindsight, it appears that my grandpa was also a troublemaker, but one who “rocked a larger boat” than anything I had yet attempted.)
That single question had been answered, but the mystery of my self-awareness was still a problem. The Church called the missing element “soul” or “spirit,” but merely giving it a name didn’t really explain it; so I kept searching.
One day my Dad brought home a microscope, and we grabbed a cup of water from a stagnant pond (which looked like a good source for microscopic organisms). I spent some time watching those tiny transparent critters wiggling around in that little drop of water, hunting for food, and just exploring their world. I announced to my Dad that those critters appeared to be aware they existed! He smiled, and nodded in agreement, but neither of us understood how that was possible. They each had only one cell; and that cell wasn’t a brain cell, or even a nerve cell! I still didn’t know how a “soul” or a “spirit” worked, but I then had the impression that something very much like it was present, even in microscopic critters.
Years later, I remember viewing a microscopic time-lapse movie of a single cell dividing. The resolution was good enough that I could see the double set of chromosomes being pulled away from each other, by their middles, into the two separate sides of the dividing cell. I wondered how the process worked, and how it was able to make sure that each half of the cell got a complete set of the chromosomes. This was another puzzle for which I had no answer. (More recently, I watched a high resolution computer video of the same process, where the viewer could watch the individual microtubules rapidly groping around, each trying to locate the exact chromosome they were seeking; it still looked completely unbelievable.)
(These microscopic observations were, of course, quite similar to those which also caught the attention of Stuart Hameroff M.D. and started him down the path which eventually brought him into contact with Sir Roger Penrose — as I mentioned in the first round of questions.)
By junior high school my Dad’s engineering company had a small desktop computer which I learned to program. This expanded my world in a completely new direction — opening a door to a new world of invisible and complex electronic processes. In addition, my relatives started getting me books on computers and electronics for Christmas and birthday presents. My hobbies all began focusing on computer electronics.
Also about this same time, I complained to God that His Bible was not really the right kind of book: It was simply too long, and it was also way too archaic sounding. I suggested that I could do a better job, and that maybe I should rewrite it for Him. Sometimes God doesn’t bother dealing with my silly complaints, but this time I got an immediate reply. Although it came instantly, in a single “flash,” it will take a few words to spell out the “text” of the general idea here:
God: “Gee Don, that’s a great idea! Say, maybe you should try reading it first. That way you’ll know what parts need trimming and changing. OK?”
I was now on a mission and ready to start! Also at about that time, my mom brought home a copy of Kenneth Taylor’s newly published “Living Letters.” (Paul’s Epistles, paraphrased into modern language.)
It took reading about two of Paul’s letters before I understood the “practical joke” God had pulled on me. Over the next few years, I followed Taylor’s progress as he translated the whole New Testament, and then the entire Bible. But, by then, many excellent modern translations had become available.
Although I do explain the Biblical content to others in my own words (as I promised I would do) I no longer anticipate that I will ever be replacing the Bible in any sense.
In particular, one of Martin Gardener’s Scientific American magazine columns, titled “Machines That Learn” caught my attention, because I thought “learning” might have a connection to awareness. I started spending most of my time designing different kinds of “learning” computers, still hoping to figure out how my own awareness worked.
By high school, I knew, in theory, how to build a conventional working computer, one transistor at a time; by college, I had a good start on actually building one; but by that time, I understood the machine well enough to know there was no “ghost” anywhere, in it — nor could there be. I could see for myself that computers couldn’t possibly “think,” they just blindly “did.”
Since I had done well on a state-wide high school physics competition, I chose physics for my major in college. This was where I was finally introduced to the real “ghost in the machine” which I had been seeking. It turned out to take the form of quantum mechanics. I still don’t have have answers for every question I’d ever asked, but I’m no longer particularly worried about those questions which still remain.
By that time I was a fairly opinionated and outspoken Christian. I was also considering going into the ministry, instead of into science or technology. All that stopped me was that the Church didn’t really seem to want anything to do with my non-traditional ideas; but the gatekeepers of science and technology did want my skills – particularly my computer skills. (At that time, microprocessors were just beginning to hit the markets, and very few schools were turning out graduates who knew how to design with them or to program them.)
So, I supported myself, and a newly acquired wife (we celebrated our 50th this year), and our growing family, with my scientific and computer skills, while, every chance I had, I taught, wrote, and lectured, on how the faulty understandings in “Christian” teachings needed to be identified and corrected. If anyone is interested, some my opinions are presented on my web page here:
That link will take you to my thoughts concerning: the creation (Genesis 1), the rest of the book of Genesis, the first Exodus from Egypt (there was also a second one), the various theories of Evolution (including my own unique thoughts), Jesus’ 70 AD return, and a timeline to fit it all together, as well as to the other sorts of mischief with which I have become involved.
Evolution alone is sufficiently interesting to spend some time on it here, since both Rick Rosner and Tianxi Yu brought up “emergence” and “evolution.” It is especially significant here, because my views on this subject have, themselves, undergone some “evolution” of their own during the years I have been studying the nature of God and His creation.
There are presently two competing scientific “Theories of Evolution” which are in opposition to each other. An explanation of sorts is presented here:
Here’s the problem: Each position presents evidence which falsifies the claims of the other.
In more detail: Darwin’s theory does not predict the sudden leaps which are seen in the fossil record. Its theoretical basis – random mutations and survival of the fittest – predicts that change will occur by very small steps, and that it will occur more rapidly in larger populations than in smaller ones. The leaps which are seen in the fossil record are sufficiently large that some scientists (most notably the late Stephen Gould) have suggested that most evolutionary change must take place quickly and in small populations, where it would not be expected to leave much evidence.
It is easy to show that the relative size of a population is a very important factor in determining whether those populations should evolve rapidly upwards, slowly upwards, or even downwards. If we put two targets, a large one and a small one, right next to each other, and randomly throw unaimed darts at both of them, it is likely that the larger target will receive more hits. The same is true of a population of living individuals. Whatever mutation rates we assume, we can confidently expect that a larger breeding population will receive more of those favorable mutations than a smaller one will. (It will also receive more unfavorable mutations – but those are quickly weeded out and eliminated from the gene pool, because they produce individuals which are less fit for survival.)
We also know that unfavorable mutations are more common than favorable ones; no one deliberately raises their family on an old nuclear test site to take advantage of possible favorable mutations. But even though favorable mutations are rare; they confer a survival advantage to offset this. How much this helps depends on the size of the breeding population which receives the mutation.
If we assume that favorable mutations occur in one individual out of a thousand, and that their survival advantage will cause them to quickly spread to the whole population, a population with only twenty individuals will receive a boost about once in fifty generations. However, if the population size is a hundred individuals, a boost can be expected about every ten generations. This means smaller populations cannot evolve upward as rapidly as large ones.
This is the reason why insects and micro-organisms are able to make adaptations by which they resist man’s attempts to eliminate them; they have extremely large populations (and also short generation times). At the other extreme, the future of endangered species is bleak; their low numbers are a liability, not an asset. Without a large enough population, survival pressure simply means a high probability of extinction.
This means upward evolution can be expected to occur most rapidly in large populations of individuals, but it cannot even keep pace with normal genetic deterioration in very small populations (from the relatively more common, unfavorable mutations). However, the fossil evidence shows us that observable evolutionary advance do not happen quickly (if at all) in even the largest populations (such as cockroaches, who quickly adapt, but don’t appear to “advance” into anything other than tougher cockroaches) where we might be expected to observe great changes over geological time. It would seem to follow that the evidence is against any naturalistic theory of evolution.
Here is the solution which I am suggesting:
When genetic engineers make changes to DNA molecules, they typically find a “surrogate mother” (usually the closest genetic candidate they can find), inject their modified DNA into a cell (often an egg cell), and let the existing cellular machinery do the work for them. The present hypothesis proposes that God might have used a similar method. As powerful as God might be, He could easily make use of very economical methodology. It is well within His capability to simply modify the DNA in an existing egg cell and then wait, allowing His previous creations to take it from there.
More specifically, God might have taken the DNA in a female creature (female where the distinction applies) of one species and modified it to create male and female members of a new species. He may have caused the necessary atoms to align themselves within the DNA, using the “back door” of access He left for Himself in the design of the universe – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Modifications could have been minimal. God could have left many DNA segments unmodified. As mitochondrial DNA demonstrates, He appears to have borrowed heavily from existing creatures. The pattern of mitochondrial DNA in various creatures suggests that God must have simply left it alone – not even bothering to “correct” neutral mutations which had occurred over the years.
We know from the fossil record that God created a sequence of erect-walking ape-like creatures – each step being less like an ape and more like a modern human. Even if God (having foreknowledge) would not need to make gradual “experimental” progress, there is a reason why this sequence might have been necessary anyway.
If God chose to use surrogate mothers to produce the first members of each new species, he would have needed to create an entire chain of closely spaced transitional forms, connecting all species. The spacing would need to be close, because a surrogate mother can’t successfully deliver something too different from herself. Assuming God has chosen this method to create new species, this would not be a limitation of God’s capability, it would be a limitation of the mother’s.
The problem is obvious if we imagine modifying the genes in a mother mouse in such a manner that her offspring were to become a baby elephant. This is an extreme example; but the same general principle applies to even very small steps – such as the problems that humans have when there are incompatible blood Rh factors between a mother and a her developing child. Since even a difference in blood type can make a true mother dangerous to her unborn baby, a “surrogate mother” (in the sense we are now considering) would need to be quite similar to any potential offspring.
If God chose to bridge major kinds using surrogate mothers, there would be an upper limit to the size of the steps which could be taken; this limit would be the point where the differences become fatal to a developing offspring. It is similar to the natural limit for interbreeding between creatures of slightly different kinds, for the same reason. If the kinds are too dissimilar, offspring cannot survive (or cannot reproduce in some cases). This hypothesis predicts that the maximum step size between created “kinds” will be at about the limit of interbreeding.
In many cases, this appears to be the approximate spacing between presently existing species. This is also approximately the spacing we find in the fossil record: we see a chain of “quantum leaps” at approximately the interbreeding limit, connecting life’s kinds. This is different from the gradual continuum predicted by Darwin’s theory, and also different from the complete absence of transitional forms which most creationistic theories predict.
We can see how God might have accomplished this in Luke’s Gospel, starting with how Jesus was to be born of Mary:
Luke 1:35:
“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Next, just three chapters later, in Luke’s Gospel:
Luke 3:37:
Adam is also called “The son of God.”
Since the phrase, “The Son of God,” has just been defined for us two chapters earlier, it would seem to appear that Luke is telling us that: “The Most High also overshadowed Adams ‘mother’.”
If this is how “evolution” proceeds, the paradox between Dawkins and Gould has been easily resolved, and Luke’s Gospel clears up the conflict between: the mathematical theoretical basis, and the fossil evidence! For details, see:
However, this sort of proffered harmony between evolution and the gospel isn’t likely to take root in the world as we presently know it. If it were to establish a footing, it might require a small, isolated, group of individuals who were less subject to social pressure.
The “Christian Church” is a huge and very splintered “disorganization.” Once upon a time we seemed to have done fairly well at hanging together — at least for about the first thousand years following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (with occasional Church councils to hammer out the squabbles), but following about AD 1054 (the great schism), we have been rapidly bifurcating: Roman, Greek, Russian, Protestant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Cults … None of the branches have perfectly followed the straight and narrow path specified by God’s Holy Truth. (For example, it took about 400 years for the Roman Church too “pardon” Galileo for telling the truth about astronomy.)
Young people are, indeed, leaving established Churches, although new Churches are also being planted and established all over the world. I, myself, am guilty of leaving half a dozen established churches (for one reason or another) while I presently attend only one Church. Arguably, that makes me, personally, responsible for a net loss of five, in Church attendance (joke intended). Children do not always accept their parent’s beliefs. Attrition tends to be slow and constant, while “revivals,” and other means of church growth, tend to be episodic and unpredictable.
Change happens in many different ways. From the tiny “twigs” at the ends of the denominational branches come new, but surprisingly seductive and popular teachings, like Ellen G. White’s “24-hour creation days” and “flood geology,” or John Nelson Darby’s teachings on “futurism.” Sometimes these new teachings even lure established denominations away from scientifically sound teachings. Might it be possible for a new way of viewing evolution to take root in a similar manner, but in a way that restores scientific continuity?
How are churches to avoid becoming irrelevant? They certainly cannot afford to ignore correctly-established scientific understanding. Bertrand Russell’s essay: “Why I an Not a Christian” should be read by anyone who is concerned about the relevancy of the Church; his objections may originally have encouraged the Church to abandon science; but “science” has moved on; it is finally in a position to answer all of Russell’s objections in a solid and convincing manner. Christians ought to be made aware of this.
And what about the scientists? At this point, well established scientists are probably afraid to reconsider evidence which might cast an unfavorable light on their own “sacred cows.” There is so much bad blood between the Church and the scientists that physical evidence no longer appears to be sufficient to modify established theory. But again, there might be a “Galileo” somewhere who is willing take up such a crusade.
Claus Volko, M.D.: For me God has always been an abstract concept.
Tianxi Yu: My perspective on God has evolved through an interesting journey that reflects both Eastern and Western influences. Initially, like many others, I was influenced by the Western religious concept of God as an omnipotent, supreme being. However, as I delved deeper into Chinese traditional culture, especially the Taoist concept of “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao,” I began to realize that any existence that can be defined is not truly ultimate. The key transformation came with the realization that: when we attribute any qualities to God, we are actually limiting God. It’s like my previous example about “beauty” – when we say someone is beautiful, we imply others are relatively less so. Similarly, when we call God omnipotent, we are actually defining God by human standards, which reveals that God evolved from human thinking. Therefore, my current understanding is: the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” It transcends God and all concepts of duality. God is the culmination of human wisdom, a bridge to “emptiness,” but not the endpoint. This understanding has enabled me to better comprehend how divine manifestations occur through natural phenomena, and why the relationship between humans and God is one of mutual seeking. This isn’t a weakening of faith, but a deeper understanding of divinity.
Jacobsen: Based on the formulations given before, what formulations of God, either as reality or concept, make the least sense to you? Those proposed, at least, by some in history, not necessarily here. I am trying work on a strengths-based presentation of the different views.
Rosner: So, I don’t have a huge problem with God as a manipulating force behind the universe as a simulation. Suppose you want to postulate that all of this is a simulation in somebody else’s world and that it’s just a good simulation. In that case, I’ll accept that for the sake of argument. The argument breaks down if you try to break the simulation because it’s a poor simulation.
And there might be no significant differences in what we experience between a universe that plays out naturally and one that is a well-made simulation. So, that kind of God, I’m okay with considering. That leaves the old-school God—the omnipotent, omniscient, score-keeping creator—pretty absurd.
You’ve got gods like the Greek and Roman gods, which are superheroes in a big soap opera with lots of drama. Those are ridiculous. And I don’t entertain that many versions of God.
I haven’t studied all the deities in Hinduism or the gods in Indian religions in detail. So, I know there’s someone who is the destroyer, there’s Ganesh, the elephant-headed God, and so on. But all those gods don’t hold up to any scrutiny. The ancient Egyptian gods, with their animal-headed depictions, don’t hold up either.
So, if you want to divide things, you have to eliminate from consideration, under your question, all the gods that people used to believe in but don’t anymore. Then you’re left ranking the ridiculousness or absurdity of the gods that still have some following.
The old Christian and Catholic gods don’t hold water either. I suppose you could include superstitions, like astrology, as having godlike properties. However, to the extent that they determine behaviour, they’re also ridiculous.
So, there you go. That includes the devil under “ridiculous” since he’s essentially the loyal opposition.
Stoner: Among the most common formulations of God, the one which makes the least sense to me would probably be the one presented by the Hindus. This does not mean that I disagree with everything that Hindus teach.
“… is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought, including the Vedic concept of dharma (duty, rightful action); samkhya-based yoga and jnana (insight, knowledge); and bhakti (devotion).”
These three are roughly parallel to the three ways which Plato and Aristotle believed that arguments could be legitimately made:
Ethos: similar to dharma (duty, rightful action);
Logos: similar to jnana (insight, knowledge); and
Pathos: similar to bhakti (devotion).
I have no problem at all with applying combinations of ethics, logic, and compassion. Also according to the same Wikipedia article:
“The text is generally dated to the second or first century BCE, though some scholars accept dates as early as the 5th century BCE.”
This, places western thought (e.g. Plato — born 428-423 BC, and died 348 BC) roughly contemporary to it (at least according to “some scholars”).
Continuing with the Wikipedia article on the Gita: “The Gita discusses and synthesizes sramana- and yoga-based renunciation, dharma-based householder life, and devotion-based theism, attempting “to forge a harmony” between these three paths. It does this in a framework addressing the question of what constitutes the virtuous path that is necessary for spiritual liberation or release from the cycles of rebirth (moksha), …”.
It has been a few years since I read this story about Prince Arjuna’s discussion with his charioteer Krishna, but my memory was less about accepting any imagined “harmony” about the disaster of the impending battle, than it was focused on the unrealistic time scales given for the involved cycles
(Incidentally the very “precise” numbers for the times of those cycles appear to result from the ancient Sumerian, astronomically-based, numbering system, involving exact factors of 5, 3, and 2. This would make an interesting study in itself.)
The goal of the Hindu religion appears to be: escape from the unrealistic and endless cycles. This is where it appears to make the least sense to me.
On the other hand, in the Gita, Krishna appears to be an avatar of Vishnu. As explained in the Wikipedia articles, Hinduism, like Christianity, is quite fragmented. I hope to be able to hear more thoughts on this.
Volko: Well, I just do not think that God is a creature that looks similar to a person. It would be strange – God should be eternal and therefore need no mouth and intestines to absorb and digest food, for example.
Yu: From my perspective, several theological concepts throughout history are particularly difficult to reconcile with reason. First, those formulations that attribute extreme personified characteristics to God, such as describing the divine as angry, jealous, or vengeful, are clearly projections of human emotions and limitations onto the concept of divinity. As I mentioned before, when we attribute specific personal characteristics to God, we are actually limiting and diminishing the divine essence.
Second, certain religious traditions that simultaneously describe God as completely transcendent while claiming direct divine intervention in mundane human affairs present a contradictory position that’s hard to rationalize. If God is truly transcendent, then divine actions shouldn’t be interpreted through human behavioral patterns. Chinese traditional culture offers a more reasonable explanatory framework through the concept of “unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一), where divinity is inherent within nature and human nature, rather than an external force arbitrarily intervening.
Third, perspectives claiming that God can only be approached through specific religious organizations or rituals are questionable. In my understanding, divinity manifests itself through natural laws and universal principles, which everyone can understand through observation and contemplation. As Laozi stated, “The Tao follows what is natural” (道法自然). True divinity should be universally accessible rather than monopolized by any particular group.
These limitations in conceptualizing God often stem from trying to confine the infinite within finite human understanding, much like trying to contain the ocean in a cup. The more profound approach, as suggested by Eastern wisdom traditions, is to recognize the inadequacy of our conceptual frameworks while remaining open to the mystery of existence itself.
Jacobsen: What are the strengths of the propositions on God presented so far in this conversation if any?
Rosner: I take everything back to the principles of existence. Though that can drift into tautology—it’s easy to end up as circular reasoning. Only self-consistent things can exist, but pushing that idea too hard becomes a tautology. The only things that can exist are the things that can exist.
You can put it on a better footing by saying that the principles of existence aren’t so restrictive that nothing can exist. That at least allows you to figure out what can exist.
That includes entities, beings, and conscious things. Those conscious beings, no matter how old or big or how much information they process, are subject to limitations similar to our own.
It’s reasonable to think that everything that exists is subject to the rules of existence, which precludes omnipotence and timelessness—concepts like “has always existed” or “will always exist.”
Those limitations mean we likely share characteristics with beings and civilizations much more vast and older than ourselves and our civilization. These entities are so ancient, vast, and powerful in information processing and manipulating the world around them that they possess godlike powers.
Does that power extend to things like not having to live in linear time or being able to reconfigure space to their liking? I don’t know. But it’s a reasonable proposition.
We don’t currently know of any entities in the world beyond those on Earth, but I assume we will eventually discover some. Even though such entities might appear godlike, they will still have limitations in common with us.
So, those are a couple of propositions that, whatever the fricking question was, address the idea.
Stoner: Perhaps ironically, I find myself unable to provide a purely “logical” rebuttal to Tianxi Yu’s:
God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.
I have (somewhat arbitrarily) accepted “logic” on faith alone (option “D” in my original post) hence embracing science and, consequently, a “logical” God. However, if I had (arbitrarily) chosen to regard logic as “illusion” (option “C”), then I suppose I might now be, philosophically, staring into an empty void (and probably chiding Descartes for arguing against me).
Volko: I have the impression that most participants agree on the abstractness of God.
Yu: From the dialogues presented, I observe several valuable perspectives. Most notably, each participant attempts to construct a framework for understanding divinity from their professional domain and cultural background. Dr. Stoner’s approach of building a theological system through logic and mathematics, while characteristic of Western rational thinking, provides a concrete foundation for discussion. Mr. Rosner’s understanding of God through the lens of universal information processing is equally illuminating. It’s particularly noteworthy that all participants are attempting to reconcile traditional theology with modern scientific knowledge, an endeavor that is significant in itself.
However, I believe the strongest proposition lies in acknowledging the limitations of our cognition. As Taoism suggests, “The greatest wisdom is like foolishness,” sometimes acknowledging our ignorance is the highest form of wisdom. Dr. Volko’s view of God as a metaphor for the unknown resonates with the Chinese traditional concept of “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” This reminds us to maintain an open and humble attitude when exploring questions of divinity.
The integration of Eastern and Western perspectives provides a more complete understanding, just as the concept of Yin and Yang suggests that opposing forces can complement each other. This cross-cultural dialogue demonstrates that the search for understanding God benefits from multiple viewpoints, methodologies, and cultural traditions, creating a richer and more nuanced comprehension of the divine.
Jacobsen: What were the aspects of the responses leaving more questions open about theology and philosophy for you if any?
Rosner: I touched on it in the previous answer, which is this: Let’s say that any conscious being or linked set of beings or civilizations—even if they are a billion or 10 billion years old—
Are there beings like this of arbitrary age? Is there no prohibition under the principles of existence, and is there no upper limit to the size or age of entities? Is that true?
If it is true, what limitations would these entities be unable to overcome regardless of their power to manipulate the world?
So, just as a starting point, are there godlike entities by their age and size? And if so, what are their limitations and powers?
One area to consider is that we are verging on extremely powerful quantum computing and advanced regular computing. Computing—especially the kind of computation in our brains—is inherently predictive. Our brains are predictive organs. According to the leading framework in neuroscience right now, brains are designed to predict what will happen next so that we are best prepared to respond to it.
As computation becomes more powerful, can entities see superimposed future world lines with great detail? Everyone knows about Schrödinger’s cat, a thought experiment involving a box containing a cat in two superimposed states: alive and dead. If the predictive capabilities of computation become sufficiently advanced, does that mean entities could live within superimposed world lines?
That is, would they perceive multiple potential futures simultaneously and negotiate among them? Could they see a range of superimposed possibilities for the future and choose the most favourable ones?
We do this anyway, but it doesn’t feel like we choose among superimposed worlds. However, as our ability to simulate the future becomes more powerful, could this fundamentally change how time is experienced? If that ability becomes advanced enough, does it mean such entities wouldn’t experience time as linearly as we do?
I don’t know.
One possible question, specifically, does an entity of sufficient age and computational power experience time linearly? Events still have to play out in sequence, but if such an entity chooses from possible futures moment by moment—with each possible future laid out in detail—what does that mean for their time experience?
For example, some AI chess programs can calculate far more potential moves than a human chess master. A chess master might be able to anticipate five or six moves ahead based on various possibilities. Still, a chess-playing computer can map out the next ten moves for hundreds of branching possibilities.
Suppose an entity could do that with the entire world itself. Would that result in a fundamentally different time experience? Or am I just overthinking this?
Stoner: I am generally comfortable with my current understanding, however, Claus Volko has left me with a few questions: His definition: “God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand and perhaps can’t understand,” … certainly leaves me questioning how much more there is which I don’t and can’t understand. Although the scientific method (observation and reason) is certainly useful, I was unable even to take that first step (believing in logic/reason) without taking logic on “faith” alone.
… And, I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is either
“… Who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. … – 1 Timothy 6:16
Volko: (No answer).
Yu: Looking at the responses, several key questions emerged that deserve deeper exploration.
While each respondent offered unique perspectives, certain gaps remained worthy of further discussion. When Rosner discussed cosmic civilizations and information processing, it reminded me of the Buddhist concept of “other worlds.” If advanced civilizations truly exist, could Buddhist scriptures’ descriptions of other realms be metaphors for different levels of civilization? This question bridges metaphysical and physical understanding.
Stoner’s theological system built on logic and mathematics raises intriguing questions about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative aspects of existence. While ancient Chinese thinkers recognized the connection between numbers and principles, the fundamental question remains: Can logic fully explain the essence of existence?
The deepest question concerns the nature of consciousness. Although quantum mechanics and consciousness were mentioned in the discussion, no one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes. In modern physics, we see phenomena like quantum entanglement that might suggest deeper connections between individual and universal consciousness. The real mystery lies in understanding these connections without falling into simplistic reductionism.
These questions reflect the complex interplay between ancient wisdom and modern science, pointing to the need for a more integrated understanding that transcends traditional boundaries between disciplines and cultural frameworks.
Jacobsen: Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?
Rosner: I can understand the idea of nothingness being a preferred way of being. I like existing, though. I enjoy the moment-to-moment rewards of existence. But I also understand that if you cease to exist, everything great you’ve experienced is obliterated—which is probably what will happen.
Even if I don’t share that perspective, I can see why nothingness is desirable to some people. I don’t like that view—it gives me the “sads”—but I can acknowledge it.
I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.
It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.
I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?
Regarding the Bhagavad Gita, apart from associations with Hinduism—like depictions of gods with multiple arms or being blue—is that part of it?
Given the way the world has been going in the 21st century, I used to think, “Nah, I wouldn’t want that.” I wanted to live in a world where physics was in charge. But given all the chaos and problems in the world, I’ve started to reconsider.
My wife and I—well, mostly me—have this obsession. I have a collector’s personality. When I was a kid, I had every single issue of Mad Magazine ever printed. And now, I kind of obsessively collect mosaics and micromosaics.
One of my best mosaics is this huge, high-relief 3D mosaic of Jesus on the cross with Mary and John. It’s definitely Mary—his mother—and John, the disciple, who are all depicted in 3D in this mosaic.
It sits in my office, where I look at it dozens of times a day, and I often find myself wishing for the figure in that mosaic—Jesus—to come back and set shit straight.
I have almost zero belief that this could happen, and I know it would be pretty freaking weird. I believe in physics a million times more than I believe in Jesus. But I still wish that Jesus would come down. Now, I know the Rapture is supposed to take good people up to Heaven, but I want a reverse rapture where the biggest dickheads on Earth are taken off Earth and given a comfortable existence elsewhere. I picture the Europa, the ice moon of Jupiter, that is said to be possibly conducive to life, because it might have an radioactive center that makes it warm enough to support life.
Anyway, he is Jesus. I want him to rapture the 10,000 biggest assholes on earth to ice caves in Europa, where they can’t fuck everybody up here with their bullshit. Then I want Jesus to take the 10,000 second rank jerks. The next 10,000 jerkiest people and have them live there on probation on the moon. The 10,000 people on Europa, they can’t come back. They have proven they’re dickheads. The 10,000 people on the moon, if they clean up their act and quit being dickheads, then they can either keep being dickheads and get sent to Europa or can come back to Earth. That’s my wish for Jesus, and for him to thoroughly convince people of his existence via holy means and shame the people who are Christians in name only and say, “You’re not doing it right, and have them be convinced of his holiness.” I don’t think any of that is going to happen, but I do often wish it would. I do not believe in Jesus, but appeal to Jesus many times in a day.
You could ask me. Why don’t you, if you’re Jew and a science guy, appeal to a science guy or somebody under Judaism? I don’t think we have a guy. Jesus is the handiest deity that I can appeal to.
The God of the Jews is almost too abstract and nebulous. I can imagine Jesus showing up and telling people what’s what. He is–being human–an approachable guy. Does he cut his hair? Does he not look like white man’s Jesus, the really pretty blonde guy? Does he look like more of a Mediterranean dude? Does he take a different human form than the original Jesus? I don’t know.
Stoner: Rick Rosner brings up several points which I believe are worth some discussion:
His idea (or definition) of God being “outside of reality” might be a misunderstanding.
(Christians often say “outside of time and space”). This common belief is probably founded on a lack of awareness of a basic principle of quantum mechanics: The “Math” of Q.M. is not bound to any particular “time” or “location,” within space-time (at least not in the same way that we humans seem to be trapped). Similarly, “God” is not “locally trapped” either, but is as free from that constraint, as is “logic itself.” This does not actually put God outside of reality.
Rosner mentions the beginning of human civilization about 10,000 years ago. This falls between the development of agriculture (circa 12,000 BP) and the development of writing, and therefore the beginning of history (late fourth millennia BC).
This period of time is certainly worth some exploration.
III. Regarding Rosner’s thoughts about the galactic core being more favorable to civilization than the outer arms (where we are): My research suggest otherwise. The close proximity (to the sorts of things rogue stars frequently do) causes our “coastal view of deep space” to represent considerably safer location, as well as one which is far more interesting astronomically.
Rosner’s speculation about “two dimensional time” reminds me of Richard Feynman’s space-time diagrams. If you plant one of his diagrams right at the “big bang,” and rotate it around, you might start to suspect that time not only “advances” in two directions: forward (matter) and reverse (antimatter), but that there might be six additional directions (3 dimensions of space times 2 directions each) which may be accessible via Feynman’s rotations.
I don’t share Rosner’s belief in any real “divorce” between science and religion. I see this as an artifact of the partial blindness of the practitioners of both camps. One might, similarly, expect unity between Democrats and Republicans, if both sides were suddenly to be granted a clear understanding. This might also be worth some discussion.
I particularly thought his haunting closing was worth some discussion:
“The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.”
Yu: To be frank, after hearing all the responses, I find most viewpoints too confined within Western thought frameworks.
Mr. Rosner: Your discussion of universal information processing merely scratches the surface. Have you considered why Eastern philosophers proposed much more profound cosmic views thousands of years ago? When you discuss advanced civilizations, have you considered how this thinking itself carries a certain technological supremacist bias?
Dr. Stoner: While your attempt to construct a theological system through logic and mathematics is admirable, it precisely reflects the limitations of Western thinking. Truth often exists within logical paradoxes, just as in Eastern thought, contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.
Dr. Volko: Reducing God to merely “a metaphor for the unknown” seems rather superficial. With a deeper understanding of Eastern philosophy, you would realize that “unknown” itself is a state of being, not merely an absence of knowledge.
From my perspective, true understanding transcends these artificial divisions between East and West, logic and intuition, known and unknown. Until we break free from these mental constraints, our discussion of God will remain disappointingly superficial.
Jacobsen: Life continues to deliver modest amazement at its timing, on a personal note. I am grateful for many, many happenings in life. This is one. Let’s take a more existential orientation, life, death, and love, are realities for everyone. No apparent choice in our coming to life, so pick your parents wisely. In most cases, probably, no definite choice in the time of leaving with some biological limits, so far, placed on upper limits of lifespan. Woody Allen made an astute point. Every century, it’s a flush. We get a new collection of humanity for the most part, since the inception of the human species. What do you make of the relation of life to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: So, I mean, as you know, I think that what happens and what exists are things that can exist under the principles of existence—which is a circular way of saying that things that are consistent, self-consistent, and have a possible history can exist within a world that can exist. I mean logically consistent framework.
Existence is pleasant while we’re existing. It’s great that the principles of existence permit things to exist. There isn’t a creator involved in this. I do think there are potent processes—like evolution—that we’re a part of. But those processes don’t have teleology, willful intent, or consciousness.
When we think of God, we think of a conscious being intentionally creating the world. I don’t buy that. Unless we’re part of a simulation—which I don’t think we are—there would be no creator; if we were in a simulation, there’d be a creator behind that simulation, but would there be a creator behind the creator? Not necessarily. Probably not.
So, I have a certain amount of reverence for the possibilities that existence permits. I appreciate that the world can exist because it’s logically and mathematically possible. I don’t like some of the constraints of existence—like the inevitability of death and other grim realities—but I still appreciate existence.
Stoner:I particularly enjoyed your advice: “pick your parents wisely.” God’s design for matching parents to their offspring (DNA supplying the causal link), enables just the sort of generation-linking-“wisdom” which you recommend. Not only
do each of us tend to get the parents which we “deserve” (for better or worse), it also tends to saddle each of us with just the sort of children that might enable our remaining progenitors to enjoy their well-earned revenge (as gleefully doting grandparents).
“Life” gives us all a chance “to act as little gods.” As autonomous rulers of our own lives, God gives each of us a chance to make all of our own decisions. We can choose to be kind or cruel, to be selfish or selfless, to love or to hate. Our choices, more than any accident of birth (e.g. the genetic “hand” we were dealt) determine who we really are.
Volko: I actually believe that life and death are two antagonistic divine forces. So you could perhaps speak of the God of Life and the God of Death. I believe that the current state of the world is a consequence of the ongoing fight between these two godly forces. Since neither of them has prevailed yet, people and animals are born and after some time die. If life wins, everything will be alive forever.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the relation of death to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: I don’t think there’s a willful or intentional God. I think we’re the product of processes that are allowed to happen under the principles of existence—rules that are loose enough to permit things to exist. The most complicated things that have emerged on this planet are evolved beings.
Evolution incorporates death. Evolved creatures are only good enough to produce the next generation and maybe more. But under that system—which isn’t a system since “system” implies intent—we’re not made to live indefinitely. We die. Evolution doesn’t care. It’s not about us.
Evolution can’t care because it’s not an entity. So, there you go.
Stoner: This is when our life’s performance is finally evaluated. As we have all been taught (by the popular cliche), judgement is never really based on whether we “won” or “lost,” but on “how we played the game.” (Or, for anyone who would prefer the biblical version of this same concept: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?” -Luke 9:25 NIV)
“What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?”
The crux of my answer was:
“This life” isn’t “real life.” It’s just “a test.” As we all seem to sense:
“Real life” must be something which is more real and lasts much longer.
So: “Death” is not necessarily the final end. It can be the beginning of “real life.”
Jacobsen: I’ve asked a lot of your community members about love. What do you make of the relation of love to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: In an evolutionary sense, and in terms of how we function in the world, love is deeply tied to stability and order for an individual. We love someone who reliably and consistently treats us the way we want to be treated. In return, we try to reciprocate. Love is about trust.
It’s about commitment, consistency, and helping each other fulfill our wants and goals. When we look at the love between us and our pets, it’s also about trust—consistently treating another being the way it wants to be treated. Or, in cases where the being can’t make good decisions for itself, treat it in a way we think is best for it.
Stoner:As I have explained elsewhere, Love is a full “third” of God’s nature.
(Logic and Ethics comprising the other two “thirds”).
Volko: In my private religion love is a demigod related to life.
Jacobsen: Relevant to your prior statements about the structure of reality, definition of God, and thoughts on a Deomorph or a Theomorph, or simply a deity or theity, what brings these arguments together under these banners of the existential realities of life, death, and love?
Rosner: To discuss God, you must consult a being—a creator—who is willful, intentional, and conscious. That’s an entity, not just a process allowed to happen, because it doesn’t violate the principles of existence. It’s hard for me to talk about God about anything because I don’t believe in the kind of God we’re likely discussing.
Stoner: I think that is most concisely summed up in St John’s Gospel, where he is relating a discussion between Jesus and a religious leader named Nicodemus. As Jesus explained:
” … God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” -John 3:16 (NIV)
“Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” -Romans 5:7,8 (NIV)
Jacobsen: Now, the floor is Don’s! We can revisit progress and structure once this session is complete.
Stoner: To Tianxi Yu:
I’m duly honored that you have chosen to confer an honorary doctorate upon me; however, I’m primarily autodidactic, and we automaths typically eschew such titles. I’m also honored that you deem my theological system to be a concrete foundation for discussion. I hope that will prove to be true.
I am mildly surprised at your impression that rational thinking is merely a “Western” characteristic. I would have guessed that “logical truth” was a “qualia” which was sensed similarly, to some degree, by all humans, rather than an arbitrarily “taught” way of processing ideas. If not, then I would have to presume any difference would have to be cultural, rather than inherent (although that would be “difficult” for me).
Judaism, and hence Christianity, are both heavily based on this historic foundation, even preserving a few of the ancient Sumerian words in the first few chapters of Genesis, including the ancient Sumerian name “Eden” (the plain between the two rivers), “Adam’s” name (Sumerian for “man”), the “high ranking port authorities,” “ka-rib” (cherub), whom God placed to guard the garden, and the untranslatable puns on the original name for “Adam’s” wife (originally “Ti,” meaning both “rib” (Genesis 2:23) and “life” (Genesis 3:20) in that ancient tongue).
Evidence also suggests that those same original ancient religious beliefs, as well as their systems of astronomy, dating, and numbering (factors of 2, 3, and 5), spread east and west with the technology of writing, and this first “seed” of history.
Claims have even been made that there is some residual evidence of this same ancient history in the ancient Chinese God, Shang Di, and in the ancient characters themselves:
Although I’ve watched this video, I, personally, don’t have enough understanding of the Chinese characters to evaluate the argument which it presents. I would be quite interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
You mention that, in Eastern thought, “Contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.” Starting with the Epimenides/Liars paradox: “This statement is false:” A person who embraces logic can certainly have some fun with that; I, certainly have:
However, I think the real fun comes in resolving apparent paradoxes; making logical sense (or even scientific sense) out of things which “appear to be paradoxical.” For example, I used the two “apparently contradicting” theories of evolution (Gould and Dawkins) as the springboard for my own theory of reconciliation. That sort of operation is how life becomes meaningful to me.
Can logic fully explain the essence of existence? You state that any existence which can be defined is not truly ultimate. This would normally be true, unless, of course, that definition ultimately included all of logic and reason and all material things).
That would be the one, single, exception.
You pointed out that, “No one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes.” As Penrose and Hameroff may have demonstrated in their experiments, perturbing quantum mechanical effects appears to temporarily disable consciousness. However, if God is “consciousness,” and we (as well as all matter) are “made of the same substance,” (as Col. 1:17 affirms), then your question gets reversed: “How does “consciousness” control “physical matter” (which is also quantum mechanical)?” This reduces the problem to the obvious: They are the same substance, and they are both “thoughts of God.”
Also: “quantum entanglement” turns out to be the single part of Q.M. which makes classical physics appear to govern the “physical” universe. Entangled “particles,” collectively, “obey” Newton’s laws, while individual “particles” behave under the direction of individual spirits (ourselves) and of God (all other “decisions” in the universe).
Anthropomorphizing God is certainly a technical error, but sometimes it helps lesser humans (almost all of us) to grasp otherwise difficult concepts. (If “God” “calmly” senses an “error,” more is likely to come of it than could ever come from the most angered and vengeful human imaginable.)
You claimed that the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” I agree that if you meditate long enough on statements like “this statement is false,” or unresolved “scientific contradictions,” (without seeking resolution) you will get exactly “nowhere” (a metaphorical synonym for “emptiness”). My question is, why would that kind of “emptiness” be worth pursuing?
You appear to be (presently) a student in Hubei Provence. You may be hoping to get a good job that provides more than the “emptiness” which you claim you seek. That strikes me as being inconsistent. If my view of this is too simple-minded, then I would appreciate correction.
Otherwise, if at some point in the future, you should choose, instead, to live according to the principles of “primordial logic” (as opposed to “logic” being an illusion) you might find both the temporal and eternal rewards to be preferable.
Incidentally, I have a friend in: Shandong, Linyi, Kunan, Dadian, (276612), who is seeking to produce useful and educational products (see atom-pops “soccerball”) and to help people who are in need. Might you and he be on similar or different paths?
(天道酬勤) “Nature follows Tao,” or maybe, “God rewards hard work?”
–
To Rick Rosner:
When Jacobsen asked (in the second round of questions): “Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?”
You answered: “I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.”
This puzzles me, because, in my answer to Jacobsen’s first question, in the first round of questions, #1 define God), I thought I (being a Christian) had already answered this question when I explained:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
Therefore, by inclusion (the effective minor premise):
God is also: That which also brought us into existence.
Therefore, by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):
2) God is also: That which is responsible for our personal existence.
3) Logic is primordial
4) Math is Logic
5) Quantum Mechanics is Math
6) The Physical Universe is Quantum Mechanical
Comprising Q,M, (5) …
Comprising Math (4) …
Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …
… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
From this, it appears that:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Continuing with your answer (above):
… “It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.
“I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?”
I’d have to agree: If I were in your position, I would want to know that too. Did I forget to mention that I am a Christian? (Maybe even a sophisticated one.) Let’s go over Jacobsen’s questions, and my answers, again:
(#2) Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?
Stoner: Following from my understanding of God: Probably both. But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe, rather than as its omnipresent creator (“conscious logic itself”) I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.
(#3) Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this
search of God?
Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.
The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).
The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.
The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.
This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:
We just ask God for whatever help we might need.
The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.
(#4) Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?
Stoner: God can choose to be: knowable, unknowable, or even both simultaneously. We can observe how this might happen with a test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
A Brief History of Time Quotes by Stephen Hawking
Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma? Or is it blatantly obvious? This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.
This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did. I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle): God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV)
In case you missed it, I am a follower and student of Christ. I am also a scientist and a computer engineer, among other things. (And I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.)
Wrap your head around the Bell Experiment, if you want to understand how God interferes in human affairs. (Like North Dakota, it isn’t the end of the world, but you can probably see it from there.)
Also, I’m guessing your “relationship” with your “mosaic Jesus” might not be as far off as you may have assumed. God sometimes uses both angels and fleas, etc. to do His work. (Maybe He was eavesdropping, and sent you a messenger; one who could answer your questions, face to face, in terms you might be able to accept.)
To Volko:
I’m having trouble extracting a consistent position from your brief comments: e.g.:
“God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand.”
“God [presumably the idea held by others?] is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.”
“We can only speculate about it. (What exactly God is)”
Can you identify any points where you and I specifically and unambiguously disagree?
Do you believe there are elements in my position about which I have been unclear or inconsistent?
Regarding an addition to my questions for the other participants in our discussion on the nature of God:
I have several married daughters; and over Thanksgiving, I got into a disagreement with one of my son’s-in-law over my “definition of God” and my consequential derivation of God’s nature. He lent me a book titled “Does God Have a Nature?” by Alvin Plantinga, which presented a different answer than the one I had proffered; After examining Plantinga’a arguments, I have come to the conclusion that my son-in-law raised some valid points; so, in the spirit of fairness, I must also raise what I regard to be a serious objection against my own definition. So:
Here’s my question for myself (addressing myself in 2nd person):
–
Don Stoner:
Your answer to Scott Jacobsen’s first question:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
… appears to be an oversimplification.
Although this might appear to provide a framework for: logic, math, science, and the physical universe, it fails to address other questions which are certainly at least as important: For example:
How is this supposed to explain “Love,” “Hate,” “Good,” or “Evil?”
Further, considering your conclusion:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Here, both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3), appear to be defined as the single primordial source which produces the universe. What it fails to do is provide answers to the remaining questions (which are, almost certainly, even more important).
You also bring up the way Plato and Aristotle would have translated “logos” (as “logic”), but fail to mention that Aristotle also considered “pathos” and “ethos” to be valid forms of argument. For example, see:
Both your definition of God, and your supporting argument, appear to be missing at least the last two of these important components of reality.
… and, to expedite the process, here is my answer to my own question:
I appear to be guilty as charged. The definition which I supplied, is clearly incomplete. Please allow me to attempt to correct this omission (recognizing that I am wading into a very convoluted and controversial theological morass of historical opinions as I attempt to do so.)
My answer was:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
(E.g.: Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3)
As an experienced theologian would have immediately volunteered (probably without waiting for an invitation): The nature of God comprises three “persons” (although what the term “person” means, in this context, is subject to some interpretation):
Here I will attempt to sort some references to these three “persons” into Aristotle’s categories:
Pathos: See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children
of God!– 1 John 3:1 (N.I.V.)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been
born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God,
because God is love. – 1 John 4:7,8 (N.I.V.)
Logos: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
– John 1:1
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
– John 1:3
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us [the Son]. We have seen his
glory, the glory of the one and only one who, came from the Father, full of grace and
truth. – John 1:14
Ethos: When he [the Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and
righteousness and judgment: – John 16:8
(emphasis added)
I should warn the reader that this apparently clean separation is not always this clear and simple.
The exact nature of the relationship between these “persons” (or “properties” of “God”) appears to be more complex. They appear to “blend” together into a single being (one apparently assuming three distinct identities):
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. – John 14:8-10
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from theFather—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. – John 15:26
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: – John 16:7,8 (emphasis added)
In my original answer, I concentrated on “logos/logic” and the physical aspects of the universe, because that is the arena where my formal education has been focused. Although the “pathos” and “ethos” elements are almost certainly, even more important, they are sufficiently outside of my field of expertise, that I am reluctant to attempt to claim understanding of additional detail.
My corrected answer is:
1A) God is: That which is foundational to logic, math, physics. and therefore our universe.
1B) God is also: That which is foundational to emotion and emotional arguments.
and
1C) God is also: That which is foundational to ethics and ethical arguments.
Although I am able to supply the details backing 1A, I lack the expertise and experience, and I therefore, leave it as an exercise for the reader to fill in the “mechanics” supporting 1B and 1C. I don’t suppose this clarifies my answer; but I do hope that it, at least, corrects it.
Rosner: For Don, on the argument for the existence to logic, math, quantum mechanics, and then back to God, I agree with much but not all of it. Anything that exists must conform to the principles of existence. There may be deeper levels of understanding beyond the basic logic of non-contradiction.
For things to exist, they cannot contradict themselves. They must have a consistent history and exist within a framework of space and time free from contradiction. I think this applies to God as well. God cannot supersede or override the principles of existence, including logic and non-contradiction.
One could argue, from a standpoint of faith, that God created these principles and thus has power over them.
However, I don’t accept that part of the argument. For God to exist, God must conform to the rules of existence. To paraphrase: “God must exist to exist.”
On the position that we take logic on faith, if we take logic on faith, everything we understand is also based on faith. Our understanding of logic comes from our accumulated experience of the world, through which we’ve explicitly and implicitly learned what seems to exist.
In our experience, for something to exist, it must have a degree of solidity, permanence, or duration. It must also conform to explicit and implicit principles we’ve learned about the world. This includes some level of logic. But all of this is ultimately based on our experiences, and believing in our experiences is both an act of faith and necessity, as we have little to rely on. Our lived experience is the foundation of what we know.
To reject this would leave us with nothing to stand on. Stephen Hawking once pointed out that “without some foundation of truth, we have no place to stand.”
On Hawking’s insights an unknowable mystery, maybe it is something blatantly obvious, this is a choice Hawking had to make as he studied the evidence.
Consider this: when we are children, we often ask ourselves why we are who we are rather than someone else. The answer lies in our lived experience—our sensory input belongs to the person we are. Similarly, the fire within us, like Hawking’s drive or “fire,” is rooted in experiencing our particular selves in this particular world at this particular time. This fire is animated and given meaning through the lens of our conscious experience.
And for something to exist, it must have some consistency. This allows us to believe in the world and trust in its durability. But you can imagine there is an infinity of other possible experienced worlds—or even the same world experienced by other people—that each has that same fire, immediacy, and feeling of authenticity rooted in consciousness.
I’m taking “fire” to mean roughly the same thing as the feeling we get from being conscious in the world—the feeling of extreme authenticity that we are alive in a world that exists. But countless other worlds could potentially exist. However, we don’t experience those other worlds. We experience moments, a string of moments, as ourselves in this particular world.
Why not some other world?
Because everything we experience pertains to us, informs us, and is experienced as us in this particular world. This world is special because it relates directly to our consciousness of it. But that doesn’t preclude the existence of other worlds that function in similar ways for others.
To repeated statements about being a Christ follower, student, and sophisticated Christian, my take on these sophisticated theological approaches when they incorporate modern scientific concepts.
I don’t mind these approaches—they’re certainly preferable to those of American evangelicals who have, in many cases, moved away from Christ and his principles in service of some truly terrible people. I appreciate the teachings of Christ, even while knowing less about other religions that also value humans and the world. I value all teachings that emphasize preservative order and Golden Rule-based principles, which are common across many religions.
These principles exist beyond religion. You can also find them within physics, though this has been deemphasized over the last 100 years. Modern physics often portrays the universe as cold and random, indifferent to us, which isn’t entirely true. At the very least, Jesus was a person who existed in the world. I believe any person has value—both as someone who experiences it and as a manifestation of the forces for order.
Onhe inherent tragedy of existence, every conscious being is, to some degree, a tragedy because we’re all born to die—unless you believe in religions that promise something beyond this life. For many, the recompense for the loss of oneself is insufficient. Technology, however, may soon offer more means of perpetuating ourselves. Humanity, combined with technology, could evolve into entities and systems that are less mortal than we are now.
Technology is replacing religion. That’s a process I’ve talked about. As technology becomes more powerful, it increasingly takes over functions we once turned to religion for—such as immortality, justice, fairness, and preserving what we value in the world.
I’m writing a book about a smart individual who turns to Jesus for comfort in old age—not as the Messiah, but as a source of solace. Some people turn to the world of Disney for unconditional love. Just two blocks from our house, an auction house specializes in Disney memorabilia. We walked through it today on the way to get sandwiches.
Unconditional love is powerful. It’s comforting and can inspire you to be a better person. It’s the opposite of engaging with violent movies or porn. If you look at porn, you go out into the world and have to correct your perception of people as just sexual objects. Similarly, after watching a violent movie—like a Liam Neeson film or something with an even higher body count—you need to remind yourself that the world isn’t just a place for violent confrontations: having an “office Jesus” is a reminder that there are better ways to be in the world.
On an omnipresent creator as conscious logic, I’m not sure I believe in “conscious logic.” Consciousness exists in sufficiently complicated, self-consistent information-processing systems. But logic—or the principles of existence, like non-contradiction—is not an information-processing system. It’s a set of principles that define what can and cannot exist in the world.
Logic isn’t a reality constructor; it’s a reality allower. It’s not conscious or capable of information processing. Unless proven otherwise, it’s more like an inanimate gatekeeper.
You said, “I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.”
It’s interesting. I think it shows some alignment in rejecting certain anthropomorphic depictions of God. However, I also appreciate attempts at theology that use logic and science as a foundation.
We both share common ground in believing that any God or creator must be consistent with the rules of physics. Either the creator has to exist within the framework of those rules, or there has to be some structure in the universe that exempts the creator from them.
Our understanding of physics limits this perspective. Our experience of the world and its physics is incredibly local. Humans have only been aware of and interacting with physics for about 100,000 years—if you include fossil records and our broader observations of the universe. However, we’ve only had what could be considered a fairly complete understanding of the overall structure of the universe for about 100 years.
Given this, there could be a greater scope of physics or metaphysics, where what we know is just a subset. Within such a broader framework, there might be room for a virtually omnipotent creator. But suppose the physics we know turns out to be the physics of all possible worlds and all places within them. In that case, that leaves little room for a God beyond the physical laws we already understand.
Stoner:If you and Rick choose to end the discussion at this point, at the very least, I am compelled to explain that I am stopping under protest: I am prepared to demonstrate that modern physics (particularly quantum mechanics) answer Ricks closing objections; not only do they leave room for a God, in some cases they even require some such entity, in order to explain what we observe in our modern experiments, e.g. see:
These experiments demonstrate ‘spooky’ effects which are not even remotely within the reach of Newton’s classical-causality laws.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu. December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 22). ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Tianxi Yu, once intrigued by logic puzzles, entered the high-IQ community through chance, adopting it as a hobby. Over time, Yu’s disillusionment with superficial validation in high-IQ societies led to selling test answers, exposing systemic flaws. Yu criticized the lack of integrity in high-IQ leaders, highlighting vanity and false pretenses. Advocating for tests as intellectual hobbies, Yu proposed transparency, dynamic testing, and diminished focus on scores. While acknowledging ethical tensions, Yu emphasized the need for reform over trust restoration, urging communities to prioritize intellectual challenges and real achievements. Ultimately, Yu seeks systemic change and challenges the culture of validation-driven intelligence.
Keywords: high-IQ societies, intellectual validation, logic puzzles, meaningful achievements, system flaws, test answer leaks, test security.
Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did participation in logic puzzles and reasoning competitions influence the development of the eventual conclusion of high-range tests best as a hobby?
Tianxi Yu: From a young age, I was interested in solving puzzles. My encounter with HRTs was purely accidental. However, as I learned more about HRTs, I discovered they represented a purer form of logic, which led me to adopt them as a hobby.
Jacobsen: What motivated the extension into participation into high-IQ societies? What are some of the other reasons or decisions to sell IQ test answers?
Yu: Initially, I was motivated by my interest in HRTs and the belief that members of high-IQ societies would be intelligent and interesting people. After all, members of high-IQ societies frequently appeared on intellectual competition TV shows. My decision to sell answers ultimately stemmed from my growing dislike of this community.
Jacobsen: I have been told before that the selling of high-range test answers in Asian circles spans back as far as 2012. Therefore, at a minimum, this is potentially a significant issue and a long-term one. What would you estimate the scale selling and leaking of high-range test question answers in Asia and beyond? With the internet, it seems natural: This is global, not simply Chinese circles or even Asian circles. What does this mean for the Latin, European, and North American high-I.Q. circles, as this has been happening for so many years and so pervasively?
Yu: I find it difficult to estimate the scale, as I was just an elementary school student in 2012. However, given how much time has passed, I believe most regions have likely received test answers. I myself have received such answers, including SLSE I II 48 and LS24 36. These leaked answers were of high quality, capable of achieving scores around 170.
As a side note, when I was verifying these answers, for example with SLSE II, I found that the leaked answer ‘a’ differed from answer ‘b’ that I derived through my own logical reasoning. When I applied answer ‘a’ to the question, I discovered logic chain A, but found that both logic chains A and B were similarly rigorous, making it difficult to determine which answer was superior. This wasn’t an isolated case – there were multiple such questions, suggesting that SLSE I II tests weren’t particularly rigorous. From my perspective, the leaking of HRT answers was an inevitable outcome of systematic flaws in the testing mechanism.
Jacobsen: What were the primary factors that led you to oppose certain high-IQ associations outside of the stipulated emotions felt, i.e. “dislike”?
Yu: Yes, it was because of “dislike.” I tend to be conservative in my approach – if I’m 80% certain of something, I’ll only claim 30% certainty, which is why people around me consider me reliable. As I learned more about the high-IQ community, I discovered they were like buckets filled only to 10% but presenting themselves as 100% full, while hinting at their modesty when in reality they claimed to be pure gold.
Take China’s largest high-IQ society – the Shenghan Club – for example. Its three leaders attended the worst universities, with some not even making it to university. I’ve spoken with them all; they try to sound profound but lack substance, only interested in collecting membership fees.
Then there’s the case of Liu Dan, a high-IQ society member who started with a score of 120 and later applied to the Olympic Association. She gained higher IQ scores through making love with high-scoring members of the high-IQ community (https://www.zhihu.com/question/396415262/answer/1241102475). For clarity, the key names in the article are: CWJ – Wenjin Chen (Shenghan Association founder), SWJ – Wenchin Sui (former highest IQ in China), LJL – Junlong Li (Silent House Association founder).
Now you can understand how ridiculous the Chinese high-IQ community is. They’re ignorant without realizing it, yet act superior and treat others as fools. This phenomenon isn’t limited to Chinese communities – people like Younghoon Kim appear equally absurd to me. I’m not completely dismissing high-IQ societies; there are some good people like Mahir Wu. However, when the highest leaders of this community don’t live up to their positions, there’s a need for change.
Jacobsen: How did you balance profiting from their frameworks while actively challenging their practices? The ethics seems more clear, as bad in exploitation of a weak spot in the high-range testing environment, while redeeming to some degree to beginning, potentially, a serious conversation about developing more cheat-resistant tests and about the culture desired to be developed amongst the smart; when compared to the effects long-term and short-term on the high-range testing environment, that is, the given uncertainty of the extent of the challenge to the entire environment–so, a distinction and line drawn between ethical and technical-cultural issues.
Yu: There was no need for balance, as my goal was to completely overturn the high-IQ community with overwhelming force. This business couldn’t last forever – the high-IQ community only entered public consciousness due to the explosive popularity of shows like “The Super Brain” and similar intellectual competition programs.
But such popularity is inherently unsustainable. When the hype dies down, everything returns to obscurity. What I was doing wasn’t just about profit – it was about exposing the fundamental flaws in the system. By selling answers and demonstrating how easily the system could be manipulated, I was forcing a confrontation with its inherent problems.
The community’s focus on scores and certifications rather than genuine intellectual achievement created its own vulnerability. I saw my actions as a form of creative destruction – by exploiting and exposing these weaknesses, I was demonstrating why the entire system needed to be reformed.
In a way, the ethical implications were secondary to the larger goal of systemic change. When a system is fundamentally flawed, sometimes it needs to be broken down before it can be rebuilt properly. While selling answers was technically unethical, the existing system was already ethically compromised by its emphasis on superficial measures of intelligence rather than genuine intellectual development.
Jacobsen: I am aware others did the same for free. So, finances aren’t the main motivation necessarily. These can be swept under the rug without being dealt with at times. Maybe, your expressions were a long-time coming while you become the lightning rod for a wider phenomenon. Why was finance part of the equation for you? What do you think the motivation might be for others who take no charges for any of the leaks of high-range test answers?
Yu: Money was a factor for me because I lacked it at the time. Now that I’m financially comfortable, I wouldn’t consider doing this kind of business anymore. However, I’m still reluctant to release my answers for free, since many of my solutions achieved perfect scores, while other leaked answers typically only reached around 170 points.
As for others who leak answers for free, their motivations could be varied – some might want to show off their abilities, others might want to attack specific test authors, and some might simply want to disrupt the system. Since I was just an elementary school student when much of this started, I don’t know the specific details, but from what I understand, these high-scoring answers initially began circulating in Europe and America.
Jacobsen: How do you perceive the role of vanity and validation-seeking within high-IQ communities? What if others direct accusations against your behaviour and attitudes, i.e., claiming arrogance and lack of remorse & accountability?
Yu: The role of vanity and validation-seeking in high-IQ communities is precisely what I despised most. Most members are people with average intelligence who seek validation through test scores rather than real achievements. They often have limited education and actual IQs not exceeding 130, yet they constantly boast and profit from membership fees. They seek validation through numbers because they’re not doing well in real life.
As for accusations of arrogance and lack of remorse – honestly, I don’t care what others think anymore. I’ve moved beyond caring about IQ scores or others’ opinions of me. A truly intelligent person proves themselves through actual achievements, not by defending their reputation in high-IQ societies.
I understand people might call my behavior arrogant, but I’ve always been direct about what I observe. When I see people with mediocre abilities presenting themselves as intellectual giants, I call it out. When I see systemic problems, I expose them. If being honest about these issues makes me appear arrogant, so be it. I’d rather be considered arrogant while speaking the truth than be praised for maintaining comfortable lies.
Regarding accountability – I’ve been completely transparent about my actions. I’ve used my real name, Tianxi Yu, since 2020, and I’ve openly discussed everything I did. Unlike many in these communities who hide behind false credentials, I’ve taken responsibility for my actions and their consequences
Jacobsen: What lessons did you learn from managing a business that profited from selling test answers?
Yu: From this business experience, I learned that truly intelligent people exist, but most of them maintain a low profile and don’t seek attention. For example, there’s someone in the high-IQ community with an IQ over 180 who, despite limited formal education, earned over 10 million in 2023. The genuinely smart people I regularly interacted with in this community weren’t the ones with prominent reputations – they were mostly unknown figures working quietly in the background. Most importantly, I learned that those who can accept themselves and acknowledge their imperfections are the ones who can go further and achieve more.
Jacobsen: How did these experiences influence your current values?
Yu: These experiences didn’t have much influence on my values, as my core principles haven’t changed. If anything, my experience investing in cryptocurrency had a greater impact on my value system.
Jacobsen: How did these experiences make you want to move to a more standard path in life?
Yu: My move to a more standard path wasn’t really about these experiences with the high-IQ communities – it was more about recognizing what truly matters in life. After seeing both the superficiality of the high-IQ world, I realized that real fulfillment comes from meaningful work and genuine achievements.
Jacobsen: Given your background and, essentially, expertise in a weird enterprise grounded in the vanity of others, what are your thoughts on the effectiveness and security of high-range tests, particularly in the context of widespread answer leakage? Are proctored standardized tests like the WAIS subject to similar or different weaknesses to test answer leaks?
Yu: HRTs have no real security. I remember Mahir Wu once publicly stated that by combining two test papers that scored 160 on N-World, one could create an answer set scoring over 180. For tests of lower difficulty, high scores can be achieved through collaboration.
WAIS test questions have also been leaked, and their difficulty level is quite low – they can only measure lower IQ ranges. Moreover, WAIS was originally invented to detect intellectual disability, not genius.
Jacobsen: How do you respond to concerns raised about undermining trust in high-IQ societies, high-range tests, and high-range test scores?
Yu: Don’t trust anyone.
Jacobsen: What steps do you believe high-IQ societies should take to make tests more cheat-resistant, especially for extreme high-range IQ tests?
Yu: Instead of being conservative with test security, I think we should open up the system. Let people freely discuss test answers, but invalidate all previous test questions. If someone wants to join a high-IQ club, they should take a new, timed test specifically created for them, with scoring scales estimated by experienced professionals.
Jacobsen: How do you reflect on your actions reshaping the landscape of high-IQ societies in China?
Yu: The obnoxious fellows disappeared, and Shenghan’s ability to amass wealth plummeted. But these are not enough; the ways of the high IQ community are backward and need to be revolutionized from the ground up.
Jacobsen: Do you believe these changes have broader implications for global high-IQ communities, even the potential to be adapted to other national and regional contexts–as your proposed solution is simply to make them hobbies more than anything?
Yu: My influence on global high-IQ communities has been limited because I haven’t spent energy boasting about myself globally. However, demystifying something that appears impressive is often a way to reduce fanaticism. This applies not just to high IQ scores, but also to academic credentials, money, power, and similar status symbols.
Jacobsen: What insights do you have into the ethical tensions between acknowledging flaws in high-IQ societies and the potential erosion of trust that comes with such transparency?
Yu: The trust issues in high-IQ societies have long existed. My choice to expose these problems isn’t creating a new crisis of trust, but rather revealing an already corrupted system. While this transparency might cause short-term disruption, it’s necessary in the long run.
Let me use a specific example: as I mentioned before, some so-called high-IQ society leaders have limited education yet act as if they possess supreme wisdom when collecting membership fees. This false authority has already eroded the foundation of trust within these societies.
I believe the real ethical tension isn’t about whether to reveal the truth, but about how to rebuild a healthier system. When I publicly sold answers, I was, in a way, demonstrating the system’s flaws through extreme means. This may damage some people’s trust in high-IQ tests, but that trust was built on a false foundation to begin with.
That’s why I suggest treating high-IQ testing as merely a hobby. When we stop placing excessive importance on these tests, we can more clearly see true wisdom and ability.
Jacobsen: How do you reconcile your past actions with your current stance on the value of IQ scores?
Yu: There’s no need to reconcile, because it’s not my business.
Jacobsen: Given the long history of leaked answers dating back to 2012 or earlier, what systemic changes do you think are necessary to address this issue on an international scale?
Yu: We can refer to the puzzle solving community.
Jacobsen: How might dynamic question pools and randomized testing reduce answer leakage, as in things like the DynamIQ Test of Marco and Roberto or the Adaptive IQ Test of some members of the Mega Society?
Yu: This is difficult to effectively prevent. After GFIS realized the problems I was causing, they switched to in-person testing with randomized questions and trusted proctors. Subsequently, I trained some people to achieve high scores, infiltrate GFIS internally, and gain the power to create test questions. Without government regulation, there’s no perfect solution.
From my perspective, we could use market economy methods – letting people openly discuss and freely explore these tests. The positive impacts of such openness would outweigh the negative ones.
This highlights the fundamental challenges in securing any testing system, even with dynamic approaches. When there’s sufficient motivation and capability, people can find ways to manipulate even well-designed systems. Sometimes, embracing transparency might be more effective than attempting to maintain strict security measures.
Jacobsen: What advice would you offer to high-IQ societies, test developers, and participants, to restore credibility and ensure the integrity of their communities and assessments?
Yu: The key issue isn’t really about restoring credibility or ensuring integrity – it’s about fundamentally rethinking what these communities and tests are trying to achieve. From my experience, both running an answer-selling operation and achieving legitimate high scores, I see several clear points:
For societies and test developers:
Accept that no test system will be completely secure, especially without government oversight
Instead of trying to create unbreakable tests, focus on making tests that are genuinely interesting intellectual challenges
Move away from treating scores as absolute measures of intelligence
Consider implementing time-limited testing sessions with new questions for each participant
Be transparent about limitations rather than pretending they don’t exist
For participants:
Treat these tests as intellectual hobbies rather than validation of worth
Focus on developing real-world capabilities and achievements
Understand that truly intelligent people don’t need to prove their intelligence through test scores
The hard truth is that many high-IQ societies are fundamentally flawed because they’re built on vanity and validation-seeking. Until this culture changes, no technical solution will fix the credibility problem.
Remember that even the most secure test systems can be compromised if people are determined enough. The solution isn’t to build higher walls, but to create a community that values hobby growth over numbers.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2). December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 8). ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2) [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Andrew Sliwa is the Managing Director of Custom Prototypes, a Toronto-based company that blends cutting-edge design with precision fabrication in various industries.
Under his leadership, the company has gained international recognition, notably clinching the Advanced Finishing category at the 2018 AMUG Technical Competition with a stunningly accurate recreation of a Praetorian Guard helmet. Since its modest beginnings in 1995, when just two employees crafted handmade prototypes, Custom Prototypes has become a leader in advanced 3D printing technologies.
Sliwa’s dedication to innovation and quality has firmly established the firm’s reputation in the prototyping world.
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, his team has pivoted to developing state-of-the-art drones tailored for military applications, prioritizing extended range and AI-driven functionality. Beyond his technological ventures, Sliwa has become an outspoken voice on Canada’s defense spending, emphasizing the vital role of equipment manufacturing in supporting Ukraine’s resistance and highlighting technology’s transformative potential in shaping warfare’s future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To begin, could you share your name and the position you hold?
Andrew Sliwa: I manage Custom Prototypes based in Etobicoke, Ontario. I run a service bureau specializing in product development. We are a small manufacturing facility utilizing various short-run production processes, such as 3D printing, CNC machining, plastic vacuum forming, and more.
Since the war in Ukraine began, we decided to contribute to the war effort. We recognized that we were in a good position to develop drones.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: Given the situation in Ukraine and the expanding role of drone technology, how critical do you think it is to develop drones with extended range and increased payload capacities?
Sliwa: Drone warfare is fundamentally changing the battlefield. Drones have become incredibly effective tools. Most drones we see today are commercial models modified to carry payloads.
Operators can locate and destroy targets with FPV goggles. However, FPV drones typically have a limited range—they can travel up to about 20 kilometers, but maintaining a video link restricts their operational range.
Jacobsen: Is using drones as signal relays to amplify their operational range technically viable? What are the limitations and possibilities of this approach?
Sliwa: There have been attempts to use relay stations to extend drone range. However, this method has practical limitations.
For this purpose, we are developing a fixed-wing drone designed for longer distances and higher payloads. The technology we are integrating includes an AI chip programmed with flight loops and a target area map. This technology compares the map with real-time imagery from the onboard camera.
This makes the drone nearly independent of GPS and pilot input, which means it cannot be easily jammed. Additionally, flying at low altitudes makes it challenging to detect and intercept. This drone can cover distances of up to 200 kilometres.
It is primarily designed as a one-way attack drone, meaning it does not return. However, it can also be used for reconnaissance missions if needed. That’s the concept behind it.
Jacobsen: Your drones, which can travel up to 200 kilometers while carrying heavier payloads, clearly offer advanced capabilities. Could you elaborate on their costs and the specific advantages they offer over other models?
Sliwa: I do not want to discuss the cost of this drone because we are not at the point where we can accurately price it. Drones of this class, fully equipped with electronics and motors, typically cost around $100,000. Historically, these drones were developed as targets for military use, primarily for anti-aircraft defence training.
However, in Ukraine, drones of this kind are being repurposed to fly deep into Russian territory to destroy ammunition depots and other critical infrastructure. They sometimes launch 100 to 300 drones simultaneously, knowing that many will be intercepted by anti-aircraft systems or jammed.
The costs of deploying 300 drones are significant, but the potential payoff—such as destroying an ammunition depot the size of a city—is far greater than the cost of the drones.
Jacobsen: Shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on March 2nd, the United Nations General Assembly convened an emergency session. During this meeting, Resolution A/ES-11/1 was passed, strongly condemning Russia’s actions and calling for the withdrawal of troops from all occupied territories in Ukraine. How do you interpret the significance of this resolution in shaping global solidarity with Ukraine?
Sliwa: Wow, and you remember all that.
Jacobsen: The resolution received overwhelming support—141 votes in favor against only five opposed, with abstentions aside. Nations like North Korea, which eventually sent troops to support Russia, stood in opposition. The global response highlights a near-universal consensus backing Ukraine. For countries not aligned with this sentiment, are they, in your view, isolating themselves from the dominant international ethos? How does Canada’s role, largely providing financial and material support, exemplify this alignment?
Sliwa: That’s accurate. There’s a common belief that Canada sends money, but that’s incorrect. Canada sends equipment manufactured in Canada. The funds allocated go to Canadian companies that produce this equipment, which is then shipped to Ukraine. We don’t send cash alone; we send valuable equipment instead.
Jacobsen: Yes, I wouldn’t want to oversimplify it by saying Canadians give money—money alone isn’t a weapon you can fire.
Sliwa: That’s correct.
Jacobsen: For Canadians seeking clarity, what’s the simplest way to illustrate how their financial support contributes to practical outcomes in the war? Specifically, could you detail how such funds are helping manufacture affordable, locally produced Ukrainian defense equipment and why that approach matters?
Sliwa: Wow, that’s a political question. All decisions in support of Ukraine are political and based on debates and discussions. How much we allocate to defence has been a topic of debate for a long time. Canada doesn’t even meet its NATO spending commitments. As NATO members, we are supposed to allocate 2% of our GDP to defence.
So, 2%, but we are only at about 1.4%. Among NATO countries, we are among the lowest contributors. Most NATO countries pay their share, but Canada does not.
We feel secure simply being next to the United States and assume they will defend us if something happens. However, we fail to recognize that we share a border with Russia. Russia even planted a flag under the North Pole, claiming it as Russian territory.
How concerning is that? They claim the North Pole as their territory, yet we neglect our military. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for Canada, which is unpleasant.
Anna Mysyshyn stands at the crossroads of law, technology, and global governance—a Ukrainian legal scholar whose expertise in AI policy, cybersecurity, and digital governance places her at the vanguard of some of today’s most pressing challenges. With a Ph.D. in Law from Ivan Franko Lviv National University and an LL.M. in Innovation, Technology, and Law from the University of Edinburgh, Anna’s academic credentials are as impressive as her practical achievements.
As the Director and Co-Founder of the Institute of Innovative Governance, she leads transformative initiatives to foster digital inclusion and ensure secure transitions to digital landscapes. Her career spans international platforms, from working with the United Nations and UNDP in Ukraine to serving as a fellow in the Canadian Parliament. Most recently, as a research fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Anna has focused on the cutting-edge application of advanced technologies in the war in Ukraine—adding a timely and poignant dimension to her already remarkable career.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: AI has rapidly transformed the landscape of propaganda. How is this technological evolution reshaping its use in today’s political and social contexts?
Anna Mysyshyn: Focusing on the Ukrainian situation, the rapid advancement of AI technologies has significantly enhanced the ability to generate and disseminate disinformation and propaganda on a massive scale and at unprecedented speed. The advent of generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies has dramatically transformed the landscape of information warfare and general information dissemination.
Emerging technologies, particularly generative AI, are widely utilized in informational warfare to spread propaganda and disinformation. Russia, for instance, deploys false narratives through highly sophisticated and interconnected networks. These networks include AI-generated content disseminated via traditional state-controlled media, social media platforms, and other technological mediums. Despite being a country with significant economic challenges, Russia has capitalized on these technologies to amplify its influence.
Pictured: Anna Mysyshyn. (Facebook)
Jacobsen: Do these emerging forms of information warfare offer a cost-effective strategy for states or other actors?
Mysyshyn: This represents a relatively low-cost but highly impactful form of warfare. Before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia had already invested over $9 billion in propaganda campaigns, primarily using digital platforms and traditional media outlets like newspapers. However, with the emergence of technologies such as generative AI, especially after the boom in AI platforms like OpenAI in 2022, propaganda has evolved into a hybrid format.
This modern approach combines traditional media with advanced AI tools to confuse audiences, erode trust, and manipulate public perception of political figures and situations. By employing generative AI, propaganda becomes not only faster and cheaper to produce but also more convincing and harder to detect, posing a significant threat to information integrity and democratic resilience.
What makes this even more concerning is the scalability of AI-driven propaganda. With tools capable of generating thousands of variations of the same disinformation narrative, actors like Russia can target specific demographics with tailored messaging. These campaigns exploit existing social and political divisions, creating a ripple effect that destabilizes societies.
A critical challenge today is detecting AI-generated propaganda. These hybrid methods show that AI technologies are not only accessible but also more persuasive to the general public.
Jacobsen: In terms of impact, how effective are these AI-driven tools? Do they lead to significant shifts in public opinion, or are their effects more subtle and insidious?
Mysyshyn: AI technologies enable Russian propagandists to craft highly targeted and emotionally charged narratives that are difficult to differentiate from authentic content. Platforms such as TikTok, often viewed as harmless entertainment spaces, are increasingly used to spread harmful disinformation. This is particularly effective because many people consume information on social media without fact-checking tools or sufficient media literacy skills to verify what they encounter.
Since people are inclined to trust the information they read or see in the media and are often unaware of the extent to which AI can fabricate content, the impact of disinformation becomes even more significant. This highlights the urgent need for enhanced fact-checking resources and improved media literacy to counter the rising influence of AI-driven propaganda.
Unfortunately, people often believe everything they see and read due to low media literacy skills. Russia understands this and is increasingly disseminating information using a mixed approach. They combine real, factual information with AI-generated, fake narratives. This combination easily confuses individuals because they may read one publication that contains truthful information but then encounter a second one – AI-generated and presenting a false narrative, which they might also perceive as true.
This mix of techniques makes it easier to mislead individuals lacking media literacy or fact-checking skills.
The effectiveness of these tools lies in their dual impact, combining immediate and long-term effects. In the short term, they can change public perception, especially when deployed during war or political instability. Fabricated videos or AI-generated “official” statements can rapidly erode trust in public institutions, fuel polarization, or incite unrest. However, their more insidious and enduring impact becomes evident over time. Disinformation campaigns work gradually to weaken societal cohesion, erode trust in democratic institutions, and amplify social divisions.
The cumulative effect is that the public becomes increasingly confused and skeptical of all information sources, fostering an environment where truth is devalued and irrelevant.
Jacobsen: You referenced generational differences and AI tools tailored to these variations. Could you delve deeper into what sets these apart?
Mysyshyn: Yes, indeed. Media literacy skills are critical core competencies, especially in generational differences and the rise of generative AI tools. As AI technologies become more sophisticated and accessible, the ability to critically evaluate and verify information is essential for navigating the modern media landscape.
For younger generations, who are digital natives, media literacy involves understanding how algorithms and AI shape the content they encounter on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. Many are unaware that tailored content is designed to capture attention and provoke emotional responses. Teaching them to question authenticity and recognize manipulation is vital for building resilience against disinformation.
For older generations, media literacy requires addressing their trust in traditional media formats. This demographic is particularly vulnerable to AI-generated content mimicking authoritative sources, such as deepfake videos or fabricated news articles. Developing their ability to identify such fabrications is crucial to countering the spread of false narratives.
What’s particularly concerning is how generative AI tools exploit the unique habits of each generation. Younger audiences are targeted through short, visually engaging content on social media, while older audiences are influenced by AI-driven material that reinforces existing trust in traditional media. Addressing these tailored approaches requires generationally nuanced media literacy strategies to equip all individuals with the tools to discern fact from fiction.
Jacobsen: What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation, particularly in their intent and impact?
Mysyshyn: Disinformation refers to deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive or manipulate, while misinformation is incorrect information shared without malicious intent. For example, Russian propaganda often uses disinformation to manipulate public opinion by spreading false narratives about the war in Ukraine. However, misinformation can also occur when individuals with low media literacy or even major media outlets share misleading content without fact-checking. In both cases, spreading false information can have harmful effects, even if the intent differs.
Jacobsen: In what ways should information warfare be conceptualized as a legitimate form of modern warfare?
Mysyshyn: Information warfare is a form of warfare because it targets societal trust, cohesion, and decision-making processes, often intending to destabilize or weaken an adversary. While it lacks the physical devastation of traditional warfare, its effects can be equally profound, especially in highly polarized or vulnerable societies. AI technologies have amplified these impacts, transforming information warfare into a sophisticated tool for manipulation and disruption.
In my GMF paper, Advanced Technologies in the War in Ukraine: Risks for Democracy and Human Rights, I examined how Russia has weaponized generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies to erode trust, destabilize Ukraine, and influence international perceptions of the war.
For example, AI-generated deepfake videos, such as one depicting President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing Ukraine’s surrender – spread rapidly on social media and caused widespread confusion, even after being debunked. Similarly, altered audio tracks using voice-cloning tools have been employed to create fake messages from Ukrainian leaders, sowing discord and demoralization.
These disinformation campaigns are designed to weaken Ukraine internally and undermine international support, particularly from Western allies. By spreading manipulative narratives, such as fabricated stories of corruption, inefficiency, or infighting, they seek to create skepticism abroad about the legitimacy and effectiveness of Ukrainian leadership.
This erosion of trust can reduce public support for aid and military assistance, which is vital for Ukraine’s defense efforts. Information warfare’s objectives align with traditional military goals, which are to weaken the enemy and disrupt their strategies.
Jacobsen: What strategies should democratic societies adopt to counter these evolving threats effectively?
Mysyshyn: Democratic societies can address the threat of AI-driven information warfare through a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, policy, and collaboration. Public education, particularly media literacy, must equip individuals with the skills to recognize and counter disinformation.
In 2023, our Institute of Innovative Governance developed A Guide for Content Creators to Identify and Combat Russian Propaganda in Emerging Technologies and conducted lectures on AI and disinformation at leading Ukrainian universities. Initiatives like StopFake, Nota Yenota, and various government-led programs have strengthened Ukraine’s efforts to build media literacy and societal resilience. These programs emphasize core critical thinking strategies, such as questioning sources, verifying information, and analyzing biases, which are essential in helping individuals navigate the modern information landscape.
Developing trust in media is equally critical. Societies must support independent journalism and fact-checking initiatives that prioritize transparency and accountability. For example, Detector Media has played a vital role in Ukraine, fostering trust by exposing disinformation and providing verified reliable news. Similarly, public awareness campaigns must focus on promoting trustworthy media outlets and encouraging audiences to engage critically with the content they consume. Trust in media is a cornerstone of societal cohesion, especially during war or political instability.
Investing in advanced detection tools is another crucial step. Ukrainian organizations such as Osavul and Let’s Data, Mantis Analytics, and international companies like Originality.ai and OpenOrigins have played key roles in developing technologies to detect and debunk deepfakes and AI-generated propaganda quickly and effectively. These tools counter disinformation campaigns that exploit emerging technologies to spread fabricated narratives designed to mislead or destabilize.
By combining media literacy, critical thinking, trust-building in media, and cutting-edge technological solutions, democratic societies can build resilience against the growing threat of AI-driven information warfare. Ukraine’s proactive approach demonstrates how these strategies can be implemented effectively to protect domestic and international audiences from manipulation.
Jacobsen: How are autocratic regimes leveraging these technologies to pose new and unique challenges to the free world?
Mysyshyn: Well, these regimes exploit technological innovations to wage information warfare, conduct cyberattacks, and surveil populations both domestically and abroad, creating significant risks for open societies. Russia has weaponized AI to create and disseminate deepfakes, voice clones, and other forms of fabricated content.
Autocratic regimes also pose a technological challenge by exporting surveillance tools to suppress dissent and monitor citizens. China, for instance, has developed sophisticated facial recognition surveillance systems that track individuals’ movements, online behavior, and even emotional responses. These tools are being exported to other autocratic states, enabling a global spread of authoritarian control mechanisms that undermine freedoms and human rights.
Cyberattacks are another dimension of this threat. Autocracies increasingly use advanced cyber capabilities to target critical infrastructure in democracies, including energy grids, financial systems, and public health databases.
The freer world faces a dual challenge: protecting its values while countering autocracies’ misuse of emerging technologies.
Jacobsen: Could these same technologies be harnessed to empower dissenters and dissidents within authoritarian regimes?
Mysyshyn: Yes, these technologies can empower dissenters and dissidents in less free countries by providing tools for secure communication, spreading information, and documenting abuses. They also play an increasingly important role in accountability and justice, particularly in wartime scenarios. Technologies based on blockchain provide a decentralized and tamper-proof means of recording evidence of human rights abuses.
Additionally, AI-enhanced tools can assist in verifying, categorizing, and securely storing such data. Communication platforms such as Signal, powered by advanced encryption technologies, have become lifelines for activists and defenders. To maximize the empowering potential of these technologies, democratic societies and international organizations must support secure, open-source tools, invest in training for activists, and push back against the misuse of technology by authoritarian regimes. These efforts and ongoing innovation can help level the playing field for dissenters fighting for freedom.
Jacobsen: Finally, in the face of blatant and absurd narratives—like labeling Ukraine’s Jewish president as a neo-Nazi—what tools and resources does Ukraine need most urgently to counter such misinformation?
Mysyshyn: Ukraine needs a comprehensive strategy to combat misinformation, combining technological innovation, public education, media collaboration, and international support. The sheer absurdity of certain disinformation only highlights its manipulative intent and potential to mislead, regardless of how outrageous it may seem.
These narratives often exploit preexisting biases, emotional responses, and gaps in media literacy, making them surprisingly effective. Once again, this emphasizes the crucial need for critical thinking and diligent fact-checking – because, in a world saturated with disinformation, questioning the narrative is not just a skill but a responsibility.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Anna.
Mysyshyn: You’re very welcome! It was a pleasure. Thank you for your time as well.
Oleksandr Kalitenko, a Ukrainian legal expert, stands out as a pioneering figure in the fight against corruption. One of only three Ukrainians awarded a government grant to study in Lithuania, Kalitenko pursued a graduate degree in European Union and International Law. His academic journey began with a specialization in Commercial Law and culminated in a master’s thesis supervised by the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court.
Kalitenko’s international legal training extends beyond academia. He gained practical experience at a leading Swedish law firm that twice earned the prestigious British Legal Awards for the best European law office. His résumé is also enriched by voluntary work and a deep commitment to public service, including researching whistleblower protections across the European Union. His findings informed recommendations for Transparency International Latvia and an expert group led by Latvia’s prime minister, shaping the groundwork for future whistleblower legislation.
Between 2014 and 2018, Kalitenko spearheaded grassroots campaigns such as “They Would Not Be Silent,” which aimed to dismantle public stigma against anti-corruption activists and promote a culture of accountability. This work earned him a European Union grant and further cemented his role as a thought leader in transparency and governance.
Kalitenko’s influence extends into Ukraine’s evolving legal landscape. Since 2014, he has been crucial in drafting and advocating anti-corruption legislation, often amid immense political and social challenges. He has lectured widely, coordinated volunteers, and co-authored studies on Ukraine’s burgeoning anti-corruption ecosystem. His insights on asset declaration, conflicts of interest, and governmental transparency resonate at national and international forums.
Currently serving as a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, Kalitenko is at the forefront of efforts to reform Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure amid the turmoil of war. He underscores the importance of building robust institutions from the ground up, citing Ukraine’s distinct reform trajectory and significant achievements in public procurement and asset declaration—areas where, remarkably, it has outpaced some European Union countries. Despite setbacks, such as delays in establishing the High Anti-Corruption Court, Kalitenko remains optimistic about Ukraine’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption and its capacity for transformative change.
For Kalitenko, the path forward lies in maintaining momentum, fostering international partnerships, and addressing systemic challenges head-on. His vision reflects hope and a determination to see Ukraine emerge stronger, more transparent, and more just—a model for other nations grappling with corruption.
Pictured: Oleksandr Kalitenko. (Transparency International Ukraine)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, your work spans anti-corruption and commercial law, mainly focusing on international legal frameworks. You completed a thesis in Lithuania analyzing the responsibilities of states and international organizations for wrongful acts. Can you walk us through the key findings of your research and how they inform your current anti-corruption efforts?
Oleksandr Kalitenko: That was a crucial part of my master’s thesis, which was the final stage of my program at Vilnius University in Lithuania. They offer an LLM program focused on International and European Union law. I chose this topic because I was interested in comparing the responsibilities of states and international organizations.
I selected one of my professors, who later became the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court. At that time, he was my professor in international organizations, so it was a logical choice to have him as my thesis supervisor. My research was exciting because I began by examining how the United Nations responded to international crises, such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Unsurprisingly, some international organizations could have responded better to crises. History seems to be repeating itself, as we saw recently with António Guterres’s visit to Russia and his meeting with Vladimir Putin, a wanted war criminal. Even while working on my thesis, I observed that international organizations often failed to respond adequately to crises, which influenced my decision to pursue my current career.
After completing my studies in Lithuania, I decided to volunteer for Transparency International because non-governmental organizations are often more effective than bureaucratic government bodies. It was a natural decision for me. I started as a volunteer and intern at Transparency International Ukraine in 2014, following a successful internship with Transparency International Latvia in Riga. I chose the Baltic because I was very interested in how these post-Soviet states became successful members of the European Union, NATO, Schengen area, etc., and what needs to be done in Ukraine to follow a similar path.
During my internship in Latvia, I began researching international best practices for whistleblower protection. This interest originated from my master’s thesis, where I noted that whistleblowers often spoke out about issues within international organizations. Still, their concerns were not met with proper responses. This led me to collect information for the new whistleblower protection law in Latvia, which was under development in 2013.
Whistleblower protection wasn’t a prominent issue in Ukraine then, particularly during Viktor Yanukovych’s rule. Therefore, I chose to focus on the Latvian model and worked as part of a team to contribute to developing whistleblower protection frameworks.
The Latvian prime minister headed it, and the goal of this working group was to collect all the international best practices and recommendations to draft a strong whistleblower protection law in Latvia. Later, I can say that my future work—I’ve been working for Transparency International for 10 years, currently with the Ukrainian chapter—has been very much connected with whistleblower protection and anti-corruption prevention. I believe it is far more effective to protect whistleblowers through legislation than to be a typical lawyer who can only protect one client at a time. For example, fighting for good laws that protect many people, including whistleblowers, is much better.
That was the conclusion of my master’s thesis: I want to protect as many people as possible. In addition to whistleblower protection, I work on legal issues related to asset declarations and conflict-of-interest prevention and the analysis of international best practices in anti-corruption measures and policies. I’m also involved in the CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) analysis. Transparency International releases this study annually. Part of my expertise is analyzing trends in martial law, corruption, and what we observe in our CPI studies.
Corruption, amongst other issues, helped drive Viktor Yanukovych from power. (Wikimedia)
Jacobsen: What were the most significant findings from your research on whistleblower laws across EU countries?
Kalitenko: The EU has a directive on whistleblower protection related to reporting breaches of EU law. This year, another directive was adopted to combat what’s known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), used to harass whistleblowers. In such cases, companies with large legal teams or even government-influenced organizations might start legal proceedings against whistleblowers to distract them from their reporting by burdening them with lawsuits.
The European Union now has these two directives. We’ve researched the implementation of the first directive on whistleblower protection for breaches of EU law. Unfortunately, the implementation has not been ideal. Some countries missed the deadline set by the EU for integrating the directive’s provisions into their national laws.
Sadly, some countries introduced draft laws that were not fully aligned with the EU directive. This wasn’t very helpful because the EU had set good standards with this directive, especially when it was introduced five years ago. But again, the real issue is the question of implementation.
There has been some progress, and the situation is better than it once was. However, Transparency International conducted research that revealed almost every country still needs to fully implement the EU directive on whistleblower protection, even five years after its adoption. So, again, it could be a better result. I had higher expectations, but this may reflect a lack of political will to adopt it properly.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Ukraine, what unique challenges do whistleblowers face, particularly under the updated legislation passed before the full-scale war with Russia?
Kalitenko: Before the war with Russia, we updated the law on whistleblower protection. Unfortunately, some provisions of this law had gaps that still needed to be addressed.
One such gap, for example, is that only corruption whistleblowers are protected in Ukraine. This does not align with the EU directive, which provides a broader definition of whistleblowers. Whistleblowers reporting on human rights violations, transport safety, food safety, or medical equipment safety should be protected, not just those reporting corruption. But currently, the law only protects people who report corruption, and this issue needs to be fixed.
Another issue is that some forms of protection exist only on paper. For example, the law provides for psychological assistance and support for whistleblowers. However, this exists only in theory, as no proper system has been established to offer real psychological support. Another issue involves the unified portal for whistleblowers and their reports.
This portal was created last year as a user-friendly platform, a one-stop window for whistleblowers to report potential wrongdoing. However, we have found that it lacks sufficient anonymity and confidentiality measures to protect whistleblowers in line with international best practices. This is another area that needs improvement, and the portal is currently administered by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). We have submitted recommendations on what needs to be fixed in the portal and are working with them to address these issues.
There are other concerns as well. For instance, whistleblowers who disclose state secrets are not protected, nor are those who expose minor corruption.
The law also covers whistleblowers and their close relatives, but it does not protect those who assist whistleblowers. According to the EU directive, such individuals should be covered as well. Of course, we also have recommendations from the OECD and other international organizations. Still, some significant issues remain with whistleblower protection in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: During the “They Would Not Be Silent” campaign, you sought to reshape public attitudes toward corruption and whistleblowers. What were some of the most challenging obstacles you encountered in running that campaign?
Kalitenko: We launched that campaign in 2015. It was needed because of the post-Soviet attitude toward whistleblowers. People often referred to whistleblowers as “snitches,” implying that they were not good citizens because they exposed wrongdoing that should have been kept silent. So, we tried to change this perception with the help of donors, partners from advertising agencies, and companies like McDonald’s, KFC, and some cinema theatres that aired our video campaign.
We depicted the moral authorities of the Ukrainian nation. These figures are shown in our currency, the hryvnia, and the banknotes. These individuals are famous writers and moral figures studied in schools, teaching young people about values and what is right and wrong. The campaign showed these figures with their mouths closed by rubber bands, conveying that these moral authorities would not remain silent in the face of corruption. We wanted to create an association for average Ukrainians with these figures, showing that they, too, should not be silent when they witness corruption.
We launched this campaign when sociological data showed that only about 30% of Ukrainians were willing to report corruption. This was a very limited number, and we wanted to raise it, moving closer to Western societies, where 90-95% of people declare that they would report wrongdoing.
We consulted psychologists, who explained that it would likely take about 15 years to change such attitudes and perceptions about whistleblowers in society. This is a big issue, and it won’t change with just one or two campaigns, even if they are nationwide. So, we started this campaign and continued similar efforts in the following years.
I was proud of the results of these campaigns. We surveyed whether the average Ukrainian had seen our advertisements and what they thought about them. Of course, the war has accelerated the process, but according to the latest survey data, 81% of Ukrainians are now ready to become whistleblowers and report corruption.
Jacobsen: Campaigns like this often aim to shift public perceptions. With 81% of Ukrainians now expressing a willingness to act as whistleblowers, how has your work influenced this shift in attitudes toward anti-corruption efforts?
Kalitenko: We’ve had to combat certain perceptions among Ukrainians. For instance, in our later campaigns, we addressed the common belief that if a corrupt official steals money from the budget, many Ukrainians saw the state budget as an abstract concept, not something concrete or connected to their lives.
One of our campaigns aimed to show Ukrainians that they directly contribute to the state budget through their taxes. Even if they don’t realize it, they pay taxes when they go to the grocery store and buy food because we have a VAT (value-added tax). This was an important message, as many people didn’t understand the direct link between their actions and the state’s resources.
Some people also pay taxes when they refuel their cars, as there are additional state taxes on fuel. Taxes are also added to cigarettes and alcohol products, so it’s not just about income taxes. Together with our partners, we provided an online calculator that allowed people to enter the amount of money they spent and earned each month, such as their salary. It would show them how much tax they were paying to the state. We wanted to foster the perception that the state budget is not an abstract concept. When a corrupt official steals, they steal from us.
This was another successful campaign that I’m proud of because many Ukrainians didn’t see themselves as taxpayers, but they are. Through this and other campaigns, we also offered legal advice for everyday operations where people might encounter corruption, such as in the education system, hospitals, or state administrative licenses.
Public polling showed that even Ukrainian youth at the time were not motivated to defend their rights for various reasons. Some believed there was no point in protecting their violated rights; others didn’t know how to do so legally or didn’t trust the system, including the judicial system. Instead, they turned to corrupt schemes to get services from the state.
We wanted to show how misguided this behavior is. If you’ve already paid taxes and then paid a bribe for a service you should receive for free, you’re not being clever by gaming the system—you’re being foolish. You’ve paid for the service twice: once with your taxes and again with the bribe. That’s not intelligent behavior, and we aimed to change that mindset.
According to the latest data, since 2007, the readiness to protect rights among Ukrainians has been at its highest level, at around 52%. More than half of the population is willing to protect their rights. I see this as an essential element of living in a legal state—living according to the law and protecting your rights through legal means, not corruption.
Jacobsen: As Ukraine pursues closer ties with the EU, public pressure often drives governments to introduce or refine policies. Are any significant anti-corruption policies currently being proposed or implemented locally or nationally?
Kalitenko: Ukraine has adopted a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy, with concrete measures across different sectors to combat and prevent corruption. These anti-corruption policy documents have also received positive evaluations from our European partners.
The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is now monitoring the level of implementation of these anti-corruption documents. Recently, some changes were made to reflect the current conditions better. Still, these are solid, evidence-based strategic documents that address the challenges and problems we face today. With measures, indicators, responsible persons and institutions, and deadlines for implementation, these documents should serve as a vital tool for combating corruption. However, this is just one instrument. Another critical tool is asset declaration.
The unified registry of electronic asset declarations was reestablished last year on a public online platform. Now, officials have submitted millions of asset declarations into this system, visible to investigative journalists, civil society activists, or anyone interested in examining a local official’s declaration. This is a significant prevention tool, as these asset declarations cover a wide range of assets and can reveal inconsistencies or lies and cases of illicit enrichment, potential conflicts of interest, or assets acquired without proper justification.
The third instrument I would highlight is reestablishing the obligation for political parties in Ukraine to submit their financial reports for verification. These financial reports are also public, allowing anyone to see a political party’s donors and how it spends its money. This is another essential tool that was reestablished last year. Like the asset declaration registry, it had been closed to public access following the full-scale invasion but has now been reopened.
Additionally, I recommend the complete restoration of competitive processes in public procurement. We have a good tool called Prozorro, the electronic public procurement system, which investigative journalists use extensively to monitor for wrongdoing in this area. So, overall, despite the war with Russia, Ukraine has demonstrated significant progress in fighting corruption.
Our Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has shown that countries fighting a war typically decline their scores as corruption increases under such circumstances. However, Ukraine gained an additional 3 points last year, one of the best results globally. The CPI covers nearly 200 countries and territories, and Ukraine has shown a remarkable upward trend. Over the past 10 years, we have gained 11 points, placing us among the top 15 countries in terms of improvement.
We have now reached a level comparable to other EU candidate states, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey, Serbia, and North Macedonia. This means we are on par with those countries regarding perceived corruption and are ready to be a successful candidate for EU membership.
However, we still have significant potential to continue fighting corruption. The corruption scandals that have appeared in the media over the past few years indicate that our anti-corruption institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC)—are functioning well. These institutions were built from scratch and can still demonstrate effective results, even in wartime.
Jacobsen: Managing long-term projects like these involves ensuring volunteers deliver consistent results. How do you set performance expectations and maintain quality across such diverse efforts?
Kalitenko: We have setbacks, of course, but this should also be adequately reflected in the volunteers’ expectations when they submit their CVs for consideration to avoid future disappointments. Anti-corruption work is a marathon, not a sprint; our Corruption Perceptions Index clearly shows this. While we’ve gained points in some years, we’ve also lost points at times. For instance, we lost points when anti-corruption activists were attacked on the national and regional levels. There were setbacks due to delays in the formation of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Before it was established, cases investigated by NABU and SAPO were transferred to general courts, where they often collected dust because the judges did not prioritize them.
This caused a significant delay in demonstrating a solid track record in anti-corruption efforts. We also faced a considerable challenge in 2020 when the Constitutional Court made a scandalous decision almost to cancel the entire asset declaration system and limit the powers of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, which is responsible for verifying such declarations. Though this was eventually reversed after a few months, over 100 cases investigated by the anti-corruption system were closed, and some officials were even acquitted in court.
The article on illicit enrichment was also canceled in the criminal code by the Constitutional Court. This hurt the anti-corruption fight, as cases of illicit enrichment involving officials were closed. So yes, we’ve had rollbacks on our anti-corruption path. Still, international partners and civil society have played a significant role in helping us move forward. Their conditionalities—such as those set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or European partners for financial aid, grants, and credits—have been powerful levers.
However, Ukraine did not meet all of these conditionalities. I recall a case from about seven years ago when Ukraine lost nearly €600 million in aid because we failed to start properly verifying officials’ asset declarations. That was a sensitive issue for us. But together with our international partners, civil society has been able to advocate for anti-corruption measures and push for political will at the government level.
Jacobsen: International partners like Canada and the United States have offered varied support—financial aid from Canada and arms assistance from the U.S. Beyond monetary contributions, what forms of international help—be it expertise, personnel, or institutional collaboration—would be most impactful in strengthening Ukraine’s anti-corruption initiatives?
Kalitenko: International partners have contributed significantly to Ukrainian reforms, and it’s not just about sending cash. For example, they’ve helped by nominating internationally recognized experts to selection commissions for key positions within major institutions. This kind of support—expertise, and personnel—can be far more impactful than just financial aid, as it ensures that the right people are appointed to lead vital anti-corruption and reform efforts.
I could mention the NABU, SAPO, and other institutions, so one option for international partners is to nominate strong experts to select commissions for heads of Ukrainian institutions and as independent external auditors. For example, we’ve already seen an audit report on the efficiency of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). This report, published last summer, was the first time any anti-corruption institution in Ukraine faced an external audit. Another audit will be conducted soon, and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) also began its audit last month, with the participation of international experts.
This involvement is crucial because it brings international expertise and best practices. For example, the NACP audit included an expert from the United States. These experts provide valuable recommendations based on their international experience, which is essential for our reforms and understanding the lessons learned. So, bringing in expertise is another critical role international partners can play.
Jacobsen: Zero tolerance for corruption is a bold and aspirational standard. Given the ongoing war, is this goal feasible now, or should it remain a long-term target? How do you balance the urgency of wartime anti-corruption measures with the ambition of zero tolerance?
Kalitenko: Ukrainian society has already demonstrated a strong zero-tolerance attitude toward corruption. It’s not just about people declaring their readiness to be whistleblowers—there’s a broader societal shift. Before the full-scale war, about one-third of the population justified corruption as a useful tool to solve problems or access services more quickly than others. But now, that mindset has changed significantly.
It’s not just about petty corruption, though it has its cost. Now, Ukrainians show much less tolerance for corruption overall, and this shift has created a more favorable political environment. People no longer justify corruption as they once did, which is a significant change. This zero-tolerance attitude is essential for the war effort and the long-term success of Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms.
After the Maidan Revolution, Ukraine announced that its number one goal was combating corruption. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we’ve had setbacks along the way. Still, it’s impressive that reforms, including anti-corruption efforts, have continued even during the full-scale war. I expect the pace of reform to accelerate even more after the war.
We’ve already set reasonable standards for the region. For instance, our whistleblower protection and asset declaration systems set a high bar—not even all EU countries have the same level of asset declaration coverage as Ukraine or the same level of transparency in public procurement. It’s an optimistic sign that we’ve been able to build this anti-corruption infrastructure from scratch. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Ukraine should follow the example of more prosperous countries. Our circumstances are unique, and some decisions we’ve made here are exclusive to our situation.
Of course, we should still follow international recommendations. But I’d argue that we’ve already exceeded specific EU standards in some areas, like public procurement. So, yes, we have some promising sectors where Ukraine could even set best practices for other countries. I’m optimistic about this.
We should continue to find and follow our path because our circumstances—especially during a full-scale war—are unique, and we must address them appropriately.
Jacobsen: A final question, turning briefly to Russia: Has the war led to increased corruption within Russia’s control areas, or has it prompted reforms or tighter controls?
Kalitenko: We haven’t researched this point in-depth, but I can tell you the facts from the Corruption Perceptions Index. According to the CPI, Russia’s score has decreased, meaning the perceived level of corruption has increased.
Jacobsen: Oleksandr, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you.
Kalitenko: Thank you for your questions and for the invitation to do this interview.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Warning sounds are again being made about Operation Christmas Child: a seemingly innocent Christmas gift-giving initiative operating in schools across the UK.
Operation Christmas Child, is an annual initiative which encourages parents and children to donate gifts for ‘shoeboxes’ which are sent to underprivileged children in developing countries. What many parents and teachers don’t know is that it is closely associated with Samaritan’s Purse, which is itself linked to William Franklin Graham III, a controversial American Christian evangelist. Humanists UK is calling for schools to disclose the complete information to parents before promoting donations and suggests exploring alternative, more inclusive options.
Son of well-known evangelist preacher Billy Graham, Franklin Graham has a history of making homophobicremarks, and once called for Muslims to be ‘barred from immigrating to America’. Graham is also an advocate of a complete ban on abortion and a regular attendee and speaker and the annual ‘March for Life’.
The annual Operation Christmas Child shoebox appeal is often promoted and supported by schools as a positive way to support those in need during the festive season. Despite its seemingly altruistic goals, the initiative dispatches shoeboxes filled with toys, books, and gifts to vulnerable children in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, Samaritan’s Purse incorporates religious literature into the gift boxes after they leave schools. Humanists UK argues that this approach is exploiting generosity of British parents by using their innocent gifts as tools to convert poor and vulnerable children to Franklin Graham’s brand of evangelical Christianity.
Humanists UK asks schools and parents to consider non-religious gift-giving alternatives such as Oxfam and Children in Need, and has created a template letter for parents to send to schools which outlines their concerns and urges schools to reconsider their support for the Operation Christmas Child scheme. Parents are also encouraged to email campaigns@humanists.uk with any questions, or updates on correspondence with schools on this issue.
In 2022 parents at an evangelical faith school in England raised concerns with the school about supporting Operation Christmas Child. This resulted in the school concluding that the organisation’s values were ‘not in line with a school where pupils can be themselves and are respected and celebrated for who they are.’
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘This is a generous and festive time of year, and we know children like to feel that they are helping other young people less fortunate than themselves. It’s no surprise, then, that Operation Christmas Child is successful at attracting donations from schools across the country. However, I’m sure many parents would, once they know the full facts behind Operation Christmas Child, prefer that their support was directed elsewhere.
‘There are plenty of suitable alternatives, and being more humanist than humbug we’re asking parents to speak with their children’s schools and look at other ways to bring Christmas joy to disadvantaged children – minus the veiled evangelism.‘
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has today published research exploring public views on assisted dying. The survey shows that 70% of people support a change in the law, rising to 75% among disabled people. Humanists UK welcomes this new study, which adds to the growing call for politicians to back Kim Leadbeater MP’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill being debated in the House of Commons on 29 November.
The report states:
‘When those who support a change in the law were asked to give the reasons for their view in their own words, the most commonly given explanations were that someone terminally ill or without quality of life should be allowed to end their life (49%), that people should not have to suffer (47%) and that people should have a right to choose (44%).’
Among the minority of the public who oppose a change in the law, the explanation most common given to explain this point of view was religious beliefs (22%). This is in spite of the fact that most publicly expressed opposition to assisted dying, including from religious stakeholders, is couched in secular language.
Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:
‘This report validates all previous research and yet again shows the public desire for politicians to support this law change. Compassion at the end of life should be the only driving force.
‘Safeguards work in 31 other jurisdictions to make sure assisted dying laws can operate successfully and conscientious objection for medical staff will be in place to protect those whose worldviews do not align with the principle of this law. The public clearly wants this change and now is the time to act.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The time could soon be up for Bishops in the House of Lords
Yesterday peers from across the House of Lords called for the removal of the bishops in a debate on Lords reform. The debate, put forward by the Government, covered all forms of reform, but it became clear that for many in the chamber the removal of bishops is a high priority.
Currently 26 bishops of the Church of England are in the House of Lords as of right and are allowed to sit, vote, and debate legislation. Humanists UK briefed members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) ahead of the debate. Today it welcomed peers’ contributions and hopes that they demonstrate to the Government that it is high time for reform.
In total, nine peers spoke up in favour of removing the bishops, four called for a reduction in number, and only one defended their presence – the Bishop of Sheffield.
Peers speaking out for removal of the bishops included Labour APPHG member Lord Foulkes who said: ‘Some noble Lords have suggested that we should get rid of the Bishops. I agree. They represent just one religion in one part of the United Kingdom and that is indefensible.’
Crossbench APPHG member Lord Birt said: ‘There is wide agreement that many hereditaries and Bishops make invaluable individual contributions, but their participation in this House by right is an historic anomaly not mirrored anywhere else in the democratic world, and it should end.’
Conservative APPHG member Lord Dobbs said: ‘We should be… asking whether the Bishops’ presence is still appropriate.’
Liberal Democrat member of the APPHG Lord Scriven said: ‘I believe that the role of the Bishops has to be part of the reform agenda, in terms of the historical role of the Bishops, which no longer reflects modern Britain. Take a look at the numbers who call themselves Anglican, the number of people who attend church or who would even call themselves religious or Christian in the UK… I ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, what is the Government’s thinking on reform of the Bishops’ Benches in this House?’
While Green peer Baroness Jones said: ‘Why get rid of the hereditary Peers but leave the 26 Bishops in place? … why should they vote on legislation? How does that make sense in a country where we are not even Christian any more and fewer than two out of 100 people regularly attend Church of England services?’
Labour peer Baroness Bryan said: that she through membership of the House of Lords, if known, ‘would probably shock many electors. Most people would want to know… why Bishops of the Church of England are represented in our Parliament.’
The issue of parliamentary prayers was also raised. Conservative peer Viscount Astor said: ‘We cannot have a second Chamber that does not include representatives of other faiths. Prayers should be said not just by the Bishops but by those representing other faiths.’
Humanists UK campaigns for the daily Anglican prayers in both chambers to be replaced by a time for reflection given by a representative of a different faith or belief each day – including humanists. This is the system that operates in the Scottish Parliament.
The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Smith, acknowledged the desire for reform herself, in saying ‘We want a more diverse House, in terms of a whole range of characteristics, including geography but also age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other issues as well.’
The debate followed on from yesterday’s votes on amendments in the House of Commons which saw the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Green Party, and Reform, along with many Conservative and a few Labour MPs, supporting removing the bishops.
With a wide range of MPs and peers from multiple parties supporting their removal from the Lords, as well as the majority of the British public and many Church of England clergy behind this reform, Humanists UK hopes the government takes action on this vital issue.
Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘It is good to see that the vital issue of bishops in the Lords is being raised in both the Lords and the Commons. With a wide range of support from multiple parties in both houses as well as the public it seems the ideal time for reform. We hope that the Government moves to remove this unfair privilege.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk, or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Today in the Commons MPs from multiple parties criticised the automatic right of bishops to sit in the House of Lords. They made their views clear as part of a debate on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, with amendments being proposed to remove the 26 reserved places for Church of England bishops. One amendment was proposed by a large number of Conservative MPs with support from Reform, the SNP, and two Labour backbenchers. Another was proposed by the Lib Dems, with support from the Green Party. However, all amendments were defeated due to Government concerns about broadening the Bill. Humanists UK welcomed the debate, having briefed MPs in advance, and hopes it means that the bishops will be considered next for removal.
Conservative MP Sir Gavin Williamson, proposer of one of the amendments, summed up the problem of bishops in the House of Lords by saying, ‘It is fundamentally unfair that we still have a situation where a bloc of clerics have a right and a say over our legislation—over how my constituents live’ He also pointed out that ‘Only one other sovereign country has clerics in its parliamentary body, which is Iran.’
Meanwhile Liberal Democrat MP Freddie Van Mierlo, who also brought up his ‘zeal for the removal of the Bishops’ mentioned the special privileges that the bishops have in the House of Lords. They have privileged speaking rights over other peers – when a bishop wants to speak, others are expected to give way and they are exempted from the portions of the Code of Conduct of the Lords that forbid payment for providing advice and services, enabling them to advocate on behalf of the Church of England.
SNP spokesperson Pete Wishart MP described the bishops as ‘A historic remnant from medieval times that… is totally absurd.’ As he noted the UK is a ‘multi-faith and no-faith complex democracy, where so few people actually attend their Church.’ Currently over half the population are non-religious while only 12% are Anglican even less regularly attend church.
Conservative MP Dr Andrew Murrison said ‘I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops—of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars… I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.’
Speaking for the Government, Minister without Portfolio Ellie Reeves MP rejected the amendments on the grounds that ‘this is a focussed Bill which delivers on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform. The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers from the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.’ Ultimately the Government was concerned that the Bill should stick only to what was in its manifesto, which meant removing the hereditary peers but not the bishops.
Given the wide range of support from multiple parties it is clear that pressure is building to remove the unfair and undemocratic right for the 26 reserved places for Church of England bishops.
The public overwhelmingly agrees that bishops should not automatically be granted a right to sit in the House of Lords. A survey conducted by YouGov for the Times found that 62 per cent of British adults believe that no religious leaders should have ‘an automatic right to seats’ in Parliament. This sentiment will only have increased with the shift towards a less religious society.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘It is clear after today that there is an increasingly wide range of support to remove the bishops from the House of Lords. After the hereditary peers are removed from the Lords, the bishops should be next. We hope the Government recognises the need to quickly remove this undemocratic and discriminatory arrangement.’
Notes:
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been published. Introduced by Kim Leadbeater MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, the Bill will allow adults who are terminally ill with six months left to live or fewer the ability to end their own life, subject to safeguards and protections. The Second Reading will be on Friday 29 November. Humanists UK has welcomed the introduction of the Bill.
The individual must make a voluntary, informed, and settled wish, confirmed by two independent doctors and approved by the High Court. The doctors must verify the patient’s terminal diagnosis and mental capacity. The declaration can be revoked at any time. The medicine can only be self-administered.
No doctor will be under any obligation to participate in any part of the process. The Chief Medical Officers in England and Wales and the Secretary of State will be required to monitor and report on the operation of the law.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament. It differs in that terminally ill people are eligible regardless of how long they have left to live.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘This is a historic Bill which would give many suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve. As they debate its provisions, parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address.
‘Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
‘The fact of the matter is that assisted dying is already happening in this country. People are travelling to Switzerland, engaging in suicides and mercy killings, and doctors are providing too much morphine. Others are dying through suicide. MPs’ jobs are properly understood not as introducing a practice where there is none but to introduce safeguards where there are none.
‘We recognise that some MPs may be nervous about such a significant piece of legislation coming before them so early in their terms. But we hope that they will realise that, if they support assisted dying in principle but are concerned about the practicalities, they should vote in favour of it at second reading. The subsequent committee and report stages offer ample opportunities to provide detailed scrutiny of the measure, before future votes as the proposals proceed through their parliamentary stages.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
This weekend, humanist groups across the UK will join Remembrance ceremonies, laying wreaths and representing the non-religious at local commemorations nationwide.
Humanist representatives will participate in the national Remembrance ceremonies in London, Cardiff, Belfast, and Edinburgh, as well as in community ceremonies across the country. Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson will again represent the non-religious at the UK’s national ceremony, the National Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London. Humanists UK is proud to stand with people from all backgrounds in a shared moment of remembrance.
Defence Humanists and the Humanists and Non-religious in Defence (HAND, the internal humanist network in the Ministry of Defence) will have their annual remembrance ceremony on Saturday at the the Royal College of Defence Studies in London. The event is fully booked, and will include a list of distinguished speakers including Defence Humanists patron Francesca Stavrakopoulou, as well as representatives from NATO military humanist chaplaincies, members of Royal Hospital Chelsea, and members of the UK Cadet Forces.
As growing numbers within the UK armed forces identify as having no religion, currently at 37% of personnel, the presence of humanists at Remembrance ceremonies becomes increasingly significant. Their participation ensures that this commemoration truly reflects the diversity of those who serve, fostering a sense of unity and shared remembrance across all beliefs. By honouring the fallen, we reaffirm our collective commitment to peace and a future built on compassion and understanding.
As the number of non-religious personnel in the armed forces grows, so does the need for non-religious pastoral support. Humanists UK is working with the Ministry of Defence to increase provision as the official endorsing body for non-religious pastoral officers in the armed forces.
Defence Humanists pushed for greater recognition of the non-religious at Remembrance through its ‘For All Who Serve’ campaign, which culminated in the historic decision to include humanists in the national Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph in 2018. Defence Humanists continue to argue for a more inclusive national ceremony; the current ceremony is Anglican-led, with participation from religious groups and humanists.
Roger Hutton, Humanists UK Patron and former Director International Security in the Ministry of Defence, penned this powerful article on what Remembrance means to him:
‘Ritual can help frame our Remembrance, to give it shape, to channel our emotions. That can take a secular or a religious form. For me, as a humanist, my natural preference is the former. I want and need to hear the stories of those involved in or affected by conflict. I want to know, and learn from, the human experience of conflict.’
Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:
‘Remembering all those who serve or have served in the cause of freedom and democracy is of the utmost value, and we’re grateful to once again have the opportunity to come together to do so.’
‘Non-religious people play a vital role within our Armed Forces, and it’s essential that they, too, are honoured in Remembrance. Humanist representation across Remembrance ceremonies provides a meaningful moment for humanists everywhere to reflect in a way that resonates deeply with their own values and beliefs.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Religious Education (RE) is in need of significant reform so that it meets the needs of today’s society and is relevant to young people, says Humanists UK in its submission to Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence.
Reform of the subject so that it is taught in a broad, and balanced manner in all state-funded schools regardless of religious character, a suggested name change to ‘Religions and Worldviews’ with subject inclusive of non-religious worldviews like humanism, and the removal of any faith-based opt-outs to the subject are some of the changes suggested to improve the quality of the subject. Humanists UK also argues that the subject should be brought into the national curriculum to make the subject consistent across all schools.
The review was launched following the 2024 King’s Speech and aims to make sure the curriculum ‘appropriately balances ambition, excellence, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity for all children and young people’. The call for evidence, which closes on 22 November, is the first stage of the review, with an interim report based on submissions expected in early 2025. There has been no review of the curriculum since 2013 and is already falling out of date, particularly in relation to RE. Earlier this year an Ofsted report into RE found that the current RE curriculum often lacked ‘sufficient substance to prepare pupils to live in a complex world’.
Alongside RE reform, Humanists UK also calls on the review panel to make sure Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) is taught in an unbiased and impartial manner, with no allowance for faith-based teaching or any parental right to withdraw children from any aspect of the subject. Mandatory daily Christian worship in schools of no religious character should also be replaced by the introduction of inclusive assemblies for pupil development into the curriculum. A recent poll found that 70% of school leaders opposed collective worship.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘The Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence has been a welcome opportunity for us to show the panel that there is a real need for meaningful reform to RE, RSE and other subjects to make sure they are fit for purpose and relevant to the needs of young people.
‘We also hope the panel will seriously consider the inclusion of inclusive assemblies for pupil development into the curriculum, and replace 80 year old mandatory Christian collective worship laws that leave so many non-Christian and non-religious pupils feeling disengaged. We look forward to working with the review panel as review processes to develop these proposals.’
Humanists UK campaigns for RE to become an inclusive, impartial, objective, fair, balanced, and relevant subject allowing pupils to explore a variety of religions and humanism, sitting alongside other humanities subjects in the curriculum and with the same status as them.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Read more about our work on progressive reforms to the school curriculum.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Northern Ireland Humanists and humanists around the UK have expressed their sadness following the death of former MLA Anna Lo, who was the most high-profile humanist MLA in Northern Ireland.
A humanist and supporter of Northern Ireland Humanists, Anna was a trailblazing member of the Northern Ireland Assembly who broke new ground as the first Chinese parliamentarian in UK history.
She served as Alliance Party MLA for Belfast South from 2007 until 2016, when she was forced to stand down due to a pattern of targeted racial abuse from Ulster unionists. She lived with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator, who worked with her on a number of humanist issues, including the successful campaign to decriminalise abortion, paid tribute to Anna by saying:
‘Anna was an amazing woman who we worked closely with over the years. She exemplified humanist values. She was a critical thinker, her politics was led by evidence and data, and she was filled with empathy and warmth for her fellow human beings.
‘We are going to miss Anna dearly. We already do. She was a serious force for good in our society who overcame significant challenges in her personal life, but remained focused on her goal of bettering people’s lives. She is someone I look up to and a role model for Northern Ireland’s politicians now and in the years to come.’
Alliance Party leader Naomi Long MLA paid tribute by saying:
‘Anna was not a religious person. As a humanist, she believed in the goodness of people and their ability to transcend division. She exemplified that, every day of her life. Good things do, indeed, come in small packages, and Anna Lo was the best of us. She was my friend: warm, witty, funny, fierce, courageous and kind. I will miss her enormously, but she will live on in her legacy and in the hearts of all those whom she touched with her kindness.’
Anna helped to launch Northern Ireland Humanists at its official launch event in 2016, and attended many of the charity’s brunch socials, rallies, events, and activities alongside the NI Interfaith Forum. She was courageous in identifying publicly as non-religious even in Northern Ireland’s religiously charged political arena. For example, in 2015, she was the only MLA out of seven non-religious MLAs identified by the BBC who was willing to be publicly identified as non-religious and interviewed on that basis.
She was someone who believed in the future of Northern Ireland as a cosmopolitan, egalitarian society where public policy is based on evidence, human rights, and democratic consensus, and where religion does not divide people into political and social tribes.
In her own words, Anna said:
‘I think in Northern Ireland so many of our politicians use their faith as almost an attraction for voters… What I want to see is policy-making based on evidence – scientific evidence, medical evidence, social science evidence – and not the Bible.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator at boyd@humanists.uk or phone 07918 975795.
Northern Ireland Humanists is part of Humanists UK, working with the Humanist Association of Ireland. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Today sees the release of Humanists UK’s new book What I Believe, a collection of over 30 interviews with well-known humanists including Sandi Toksvig, Stephen Fry, Alice Roberts, Tim Minchin, Jim Al-Khalili, Dan Snow, Natalie Haynes, among many others. Edited by Humanists UK’s Chief Executive Andrew Copson, the book offers readers an intimate insight into the values and beliefs that inspire some of today’s most prominent voices. It follows Andrew Copson’s The Little Book of Humanism, co-written with Alice Roberts, which quickly became a Sunday Times bestseller in 2020.
Covering enormous ground, the interviews contained within What I Believe powerfully link personal stories to themes that touch on what it means to be human – spanning art, politics, history, campaigning and activism, the environment, human nature, growing up, and growing old.
Inspired by the essays of two humanist greats – the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the novelist E M Forster – What I Believe opens a window to different humanist perspectives of today. All ideas, values, and beliefs are open to question and in this book readers have the opportunity to reflect on the human experience and consider what they, too, believe.
Jim Al-Khalili, whose interview features in the book said:
‘My humanist belief helps me make sense of the universe and my place within it, which in turn gives my life hope and meaning. To be able to share my thoughts alongside so many leading contemporary thinkers and wonderful human beings in this new book is a tremendous honour.’
Helen Czerski, who is also included in What I Believe, said:
‘It’s an honour to be included in this lovely collection of humanist ideas and perspectives. One of the wonderful things about humanism is the adventure of exploring the rich variety of perspectives that we humans can create for ourselves, originating in a rational view of the world seen through the huge diversity of human experience. This book is a wonderful guide to this bounty, full of very human stories and illuminating insights.’
Janet Ellis, who was interviewed for What I Believe said:
‘A manifesto for progressive thinking. Vastly provocative, erudite and entertaining. I contributed and I’m proud!’
Editor Andrew Copson commented:
‘This book presents a remarkable range of perspectives and captures the diversity and depth of contemporary humanist thinking. At a time when values and ideals seem fragmented, readers will hopefully find within these pages not just inspiration but also a deeper sense of connection to the shared human experience. It’s an opportunity to reflect on what drives and inspires us and make sense of what we believe.’
The book is available to order from Waterstones, Hive, Blackwell’s, Amazon, and all good bookshops, at £16.99 RRP. It is published by Piatkus Books, an imprint of Little, Brown. All royalties from the book go towards supporting the work of Humanists UK.
Featured in the book are are Jim Al-Khalili, Joan Bakewell, Sarah Bakewell, Sian Berry, Susan Blackmore, Helen Czerski, Alf Dubs, Janet Ellis, Stephen Fry, Rebecca Goldstein, A C Grayling, Natalie Haynes, Leo Igwe, Mike Little, Ian McEwan, Eddie Marsan, S I Martin, Tim Minchin, Diane Munday, Christina Patterson, Hannah Peel, Kate Pickett, Steven Pinker, Nichola Raihani, Alice Roberts, Paul Sinha, Dan Snow, Sandi Toksvig, Frank Turner, Nigel Warburton, and Richard Wiseman.
Humanists UK is celebrating the launch of the book at a special event on 11 December. Guests will hear directly from Humanists UK patrons Alice Roberts and Natalie Haynes about what drives them, what inspires them, and what gives their lives meaning.
The collection originates in conversations from Humanists UK’s popular podcast of the same name, What I Believe, which since 2020 has been listened to by people in over 100 countries, and has ranked in the top 1% of podcasts worldwide.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Communications and Development Executive sophie@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Lya [pictured: third from right] is one of our dedicated Faith to Faithless helpline volunteers
Faith to Faithless volunteer Lya was nominated for the Helpline Partnership’s Volunteer of the Year award, and won! The award was presented to Lya at the annual Helpline Awards, held on 7 November in Birmingham, and commends Lya for her contribution to the helpline sector. Faith to Faithless is a programme at Humanists UK dedicated to providing specialist support to people leaving high control religion. Humanists UK offers its warm congratulations.
The Helplines Partnership is the national membership body for organisations that provide information, support, or advice via phone, email, text, or online. Each year it holds the Helpline Awards to celebrate unsung heroes and recognise the exceptional work of the helpline sector. By giving Lya (who prefers only her first name is used for her safety) this award, the Helpline Partnership has recognised the remarkable contributions she has made in providing outstanding support, guidance, and compassion to those in need.
The Faith to Faithless helpline, a dedicated helpline for those leaving high-control religions, was launchedearlier this year. Currently operating three days a week, it is operated by a team of highly trained volunteers who understand the nuanced challenges faced by groups such as ex-Muslims, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, ex-Evangelicals, and ex-Mormons. They are equipped to listen to and understand the unique issues apostates face, providing a listening ear and signposting to other services where needed.
Humanists UK Director of Humanist Care Clare Elcombe Webber said:
‘We are so proud of Lya and absolutely delighted that her hard work, dedication and expertise are recognised not only by Faith to Faithless service users, but also by the Helplines Partnership. We are also proud of all the other volunteers who have contributed so much to the Faith to Faithless helpline over its first year and made it such a resounding success.
‘The need for the Faith to Faithless helpline cannot be underestimated. Our team of volunteers are there for people leaving high-control religious communities who may be facing social isolation, profound loneliness and economic hardship, at great cost to their mental wellbeing.
‘While we celebrate Lya’s contributions, we have to stay focused on the ongoing challenge of keeping this crucial service resourced so that we can continue to be here for some of the most vulnerable people in the country.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK’s Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Faith to Faithless is a programme at Humanists UK dedicated to providing specialist support to people leaving high control religion. Beyond the helpline and its year-round provision of peer support from trained volunteers, the service offers awareness training to public services, including NHS divisions and police forces.
Faith to Faithless operates under a stringent safeguarding policy, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of all those reaching out for support.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK returned to Manchester for the 2024 Holyoake Lecture, given by distinguished psephologist and political scientist Professor John Curtice, the recipient of the Humanists UK Holyoake Lecture Medal.
Professor Curtice’s lecture focused on the phenomenon of ‘culture wars’ in the UK, analysing how shifts in public attitudes and values are influencing politics and society. Issues like national pride, women’s and minority rights, and immigration are challenging long-standing British identities and contributing to a new, increasingly fragmented political landscape.
Professor Curtice argued that the UK is becoming increasingly divided along a libertarian-authoritarian axis – a departure from the previously more salient ‘left-right’ divide. This new fault line runs across existing political camps, and separates those who prioritise personal freedom, social diversity, and global integration from those who favour social order, national sovereignty, and traditional authority. This shift, he suggested, was being driven by a confluence of factors, including rising educational attainment, secularisation, as well as the growing influence of younger, more progressive generations. As liberalism progresses, its fruits become more politically contested.
As a result, demographic factors such as age have shifted from being a ‘secondary’ predictor of political opinion to a major political faultline in and of itself. Professor Curtice highlighted the softening of national pride, with younger generations less likely to celebrate Britain’s imperial past. He also noted the seemingly paradoxical shift in attitudes towards immigration, with public acceptance and appreciation of immigrants’ economic and cultural contributions increasing, rather than falling, immediately following the Brexit vote – a decision often associated with anti-immigration sentiment. On this and other issues, the public was undergoing a polarisation – a flight to the extremes – the like of which we more commonly associate with the United States and its entrenched political divides.
His analysis was punctuated with compelling data, demonstrating how these cultural shifts are reshaping the political landscape. He showed how ‘culture war’ issues are increasingly influencing voting patterns. ‘The culture wars are not just about policy disagreements,’ he explained. ‘They’re a reflection of who we are and who we want to be as a society.’
Following a lively and wide-ranging Q&A, Andrew Copson awarded Professor John Curtice the prestigious Holyoake Lecture Medal:
‘It’s in knowing ourselves and what divides us that we can perhaps begin to glean those things that might unite us, and there is perhaps no person who has done more to shed a light on the British public than John Curtice. I’m delighted, therefore, to present John Curtice with the Holyoake Lecture Medal 2024′
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
The Holyoake Lecture explores an aspect of politics or contemporary social or political issue, especially as it relates to secularist and humanist issues, including liberalism, democracy, social justice, feminism, anti-racism, LGBT rights, or equality. The Holyoake medallist has made a significant contribution in one of these fields. The lecture and medal are named for the nineteenth century humanist George Jacob Holyoake, who among many other achievements coined the word ‘secularism’ and was a lifelong progressive political activist.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The UK Government has confirmed that VAT will be applied to private faith schools across the UK as part of its plans to remove VAT exemption for private schools. Humanists UK, who wrote to the Chancellor of Exchequer urging her not to apply any faith-based carve-outs to the VAT policy, has welcomed this announcement. However, it is concerned about private faith schools seeking to get around the policy by ostensibly – but not really – making their fees voluntary.
Some private faith schools, including three private Christian schools, have said they will take legal action against the UK Government. These schools claim the policy would unlawfully discriminate against parents because it would force these schools to close and deprive them of providing a faith-based education for their children. At the time Humanists UK disputed this claim, arguing that even if private faith schools did close, state-funded faith schools would continue to exist. This view has been supported by the UK Government in its response to its technical consultation with parents and private school providers:
‘[I]t is the government’s position that state education is suitable for children of all faiths. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools are required to follow the Equality Act. These include fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and none. As a result of these considerations, faith schools will remain in scope of this policy (2.23).’
Humanists UK campaigns for an inclusive education and schools system that allows no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, and gives children and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs an environment that lets them learn with and from each other. This includes campaigning for an end to religious discrimination in school admissions and employment, and for a progressive reform of the curriculum including religious education.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘We welcome the UK Government’s announcement that there will be no faith-based carve-outs to its private school VAT policy and that private faith schools will be included.
‘We also welcome its statement that no child is being deprived of state-funded education as a result of this policy, and that children have the same fundamental rights concerning education regardless of the type of school they attend.’
A problem ahead: private faith schools pretending they charge no fees but instead have ‘voluntary’ donations
The UK Government’s response also states that rather than being disproportionately impacted by the VAT plans as some private faith school providers have argued, some small private faith schools are ‘likely to be less than proportionately impacted’ by the plans as they receive donations from the community and religious organisations (2.19).
Humanists UK is aware that some private faith school providers including Chinuch UK, the body representing Charedi schools, are reviewing whether schools which operate on a voluntary donations basis rather than fees will fall outside of the new VAT rules. But there is concern that in fact parents at such schools are coerced into making such ‘donations’, and so they are in fact mandatory. If this is the case, private faith schools could follow this model. Humanists UK will be writing again to the UK Government to urge HMRC to implement the strongest possible regulations to make sure all donations are made on a voluntary basis and that no family is coerced into making them.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Consent education is a vital component of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), and should be taught in an unbiased and evidence-led manner to make sure young people get the knowledge they need about boundaries, healthy relationships, and preventing sexual harassment and relationship abuse. That is the view of Northern Ireland Humanists, given in its response to the Assembly’s Education Committee’s inquiry on RSE.
The Education Committee launched its inquiry to understand how RSE is taught in other parts of the UK, Ireland, and internationally; understand the teaching provision of RSE across Northern Ireland; and understand if changes need to be made to RSE in Northern Ireland and what these should look like.
Alongside calls for unbiased consent education, Northern Ireland Humanists’ also called for any parental right to withdraw their children from RSE to be removed, and for the Department of Education (DE) to scrap the provision that allows schools to deliver RSE in alignment with the ethos of the school.
Although lessons on abortion, contraception, and consent are compulsory in Northern Ireland, the DE issued guidance to schools and governors that allows for teachers to discuss ‘moral, ethical and spiritual issues’ associated with the RSE minimum content. Northern Ireland Humanists argues that this should be removed from the guidance to make sure the RSE is delivered in an evidence-led manner.
Earlier this year Northern Ireland Humanists welcomed the passing of a motion mandating compulsory ‘standardised, inclusive, high-quality, evidence-based and age-appropriate’ RSE In the Northern Ireland Assembly.
‘The Education Committee’s inquiry into RSE is a welcome opportunity to make the case for good quality, unbiased, and evidence-led teaching. We urge the Assembly and Executive to make further reforms to make sure the subject is free from religious bias.
‘RSE that is inclusive, evidence-based, and age-appropriate equips young people with the knowledge they need to navigate relationships in a healthy and respectful way, while also fostering a society that values respect and informed consent. We will continue to work closely with educators, parents, and policymakers to make the case for an unbiased and evidence-led RSE curriculum.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator at boyd@humanists.uk or phone 07918 975795.
Northern Ireland Humanists is part of Humanists UK, working with the Humanist Association of Ireland. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Jacobsen: How is your wife and family? How is it to see your kids again?
In-Sight Publishing 