Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/16 (Unpublished)
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing, combined with proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. West Virginia has the most underprivileged children due to high foster care rates, economic instability, and child maltreatment. Mississippi’s high infant mortality ties to poverty and healthcare challenges. Expanding the Child Tax Credit could significantly reduce child poverty, providing vital economic support.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What factors contribute to West Virginia having the most underprivileged children?
Chip Lupo: West Virginia ranks as the state with the most underprivileged children, largely because it has the highest proportion of children in foster care and children living with grandparents. These socio-economic factors, among others, often reflect family instability or economic strain.
Additionally, nearly one-third of West Virginia’s children have parents who lack secure employment, and more than 22% live below the poverty line, which leaves many children without sufficient access to food and other essentials.
These issues are compounded by the fact that West Virginia experiences high incidents of child maltreatment and one of the highest shares of teens experiencing prolonged sadness or hopelessness, which further jeopardizes their mental and emotional well-being.
Jacobsen: How does child food insecurity in Louisiana compare to other states?
Lupo: Louisiana has the highest child food-insecurity rate in the U.S. This rate significantly outpaces other states, as the best-to-worst difference is twice that of Massachusetts, the state with the lowest child food-insecurity rate.
Jacobsen: Why does Mississippi have the highest infant death rate?
Lupo: Mississippi’s high infant mortality rate is tied to critical socio-economic and healthcare challenges facing the state’s children and families such as the highest percentage of children living in households with below-poverty income, which contributes to limited access to nutritious food, stable housing, and consistent healthcare.
Additionally, Mississippi has a high child food insecurity ranking, and many families struggle with health care-related costs, which leads to inadequate preventive and maternal care. These factors, combined with limited economic opportunities, have a direct effect on infant health outcomes, triggering a need for targeted support in healthcare access, economic stability, and early childhood resources.
Jacobsen: What are some of the key differences in child maltreatment rates, the best and worst states for it?
Lupo: There are troubling disparities across the U.S. in terms of child maltreatment rates, as certain states experience much higher levels of abuse and neglect. For example, states such as Massachusetts and West Virginia exhibit some of the highest rates of maltreatment, which place children at heightened risk for physical, emotional, and developmental harm.
In contrast, states such as New Jersey and Washington report significantly lower maltreatment rates. To put this in perspective, children in Massachusetts experience a 10x higher risk of maltreatment than those in New Jersey, highlighting the need for more targeted resources and support systems in states where children are most vulnerable.
Jacobsen: What are the most effective programs currently available to address childhood poverty?
Lupo: Among the most effective programs to combat childhood poverty is the expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). This initiative targets children in low-income families, particularly those who currently receive a partial or no credit. The program aims to ensure equitable benefits across families, especially those historically marginalized, such as Black, Latino, and American Indian and Alaska Native children by removing the “refundability cap” and implementing a “per-child” phase-in structure.
Additionally, the introduction of a “lookback” provision allows families to use their prior-year income for credit calculations, which would offer stability amid economic fluctuations. The anticipated effect is significant: in the first year, it could lift hundreds of thousands of children above the poverty line and help millions more move closer to it.
Jacobsen: How could an expansion of the Child Tax Credit impact child poverty rates?
Lupo: Expanding the Child Tax Credit could significantly reduce child poverty rates by addressing some core disadvantages faced by underprivileged children. Poverty affects 1 in 6 children in the U.S., which creates barriers to essentials like nutritious food, stable housing, and education. An enhanced Child Tax Credit would support low-income families’ fundamental needs that, when met, would foster healthier childhood development and set a stronger foundation for success in adulthood.
Jacobsen: How did the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit, during the pandemic, affect child poverty levels?
Lupo: The temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit during the pandemic dramatically reduced child poverty to historic lows in 2021, helping narrow racial and ethnic disparities in child poverty in the process. However, when the tax credit and other pandemic relief measures expired in 2022, the number of children in poverty surged to about 5 million. This is a classic example of how child poverty levels are heavily influenced by policy decisions.
Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences of growing up in poverty?
Lupo: Growing up in poverty often leads to disadvantages that can affect a child’s entire life. Children in low-income households face higher rates of food insecurity, health issues, and educational barriers, which can impair their ability to thrive.
For example, states such as Mississippi and West Virginia with high rates of child poverty experience increased rates of maltreatment, depression, and homelessness among children. This can have detrimental effects on mental health and social stability well into adulthood. So without essential support in health, education, and welfare, these children are at a high risk of becoming adults who will struggle to break out of poverty.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/16
Dr. Pamela Rutledge is a renowned media psychologist combining 20+ years of experience as a media producer with deep expertise in human behavior. She serves as the Director of the Media Psychology Research Center and is Professor Emerita of Fielding Graduate University’s Media Psychology program, where she develops courses on social technologies, audience engagement, and brand psychology. Her work spans design, development, and audience impact, helping clients like 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and the US Department of Defense build actionable consumer strategies and consumers create healthy relationships with media. Recognized by the American Psychological Association for her contributions, Dr. Rutledge has co-authored Exploring Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Well-Being and contributed to notable works on media psychology. An expert source for outlets like The NY Times and Good Morning America, she also authors “Positively Media” for Psychology Today and is Editor-in-Chief of Media Psychology Review.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Social media is the name of the game for so many people now. What is the positive psychology orientation on social media use compared to the general use by, apparently, most people–so healthier and unhealthier uses of it?
Pamela Rutledge: Social media is getting a lot of attention right now, with people worrying about the negative effects. Social media, however, is any technology that enables us to connect socially across the internet. It has a lot of different platforms and uses, from connecting with friends and entertainment to finding useful information, building skills, and increasing productivity. How we use social media determines whether the impact is positive or negative. In spite of the current moral panic, social media effects vary widely from positive to negative based on individual differences.
Positive psychology focuses on the cultivation of skills and values that increase our sense of well-being, not just momentarily feeling good—what psychologists call hedonic happiness–but also longer-term satisfactions or eudaimonic happiness. Eudaimonic comes from the Greek concept of flourishing or living well, which emphasizes a meaningful life rather than simply seeking pleasure. We tend to stereotype social media use as short-term emotional fixes, but many interactions and content can foster a sense of meaning, purpose, and growth, contributing to a deeper sense of well-being and satisfaction with life. Well-being and satisfaction, however, are a combination of both types of happiness: positive emotions and well-being or life satisfaction.
Positive emotions are pretty straightforward. They include things like happiness, joy, optimism, and hope. However, well-being is more complicated and is a result of our ability to meet our basic needs. These needs can be summarized by three things: 1) social connection and belonging, 2) agency—or our ability to take action and not feel helpless in our environment, and 3) competence, or our ability to act effectively when we take action. It’s easy to see how interacting on social media is motivated by these intrinsic drivers of human behavior: social media allows us to connect, take action, and see evidence of our actions.
However, positive psychology also focuses on values as well as intrinsic motivations. Values are deeply held beliefs about what is important and meaningful in life, guiding our choices and actions toward a fulfilling and meaningful existence. They are a compass, influencing our decisions, behaviors, and interactions with the world around us. Culture and cultural norms play a significant role in shaping our values—our family, friends, and community influence what we believe is good, right, and important. The definitions of happiness, the prioritized values, and how life should be lived can vary significantly across cultures and social groups.
People learn values through socialization. Family is one of the main sources of values, as children learn values directly from parents and other family members through observation, modeling, and explicit instruction. Similarly, friends, colleagues, and groups implicitly communicate values by reinforcing accepted behavioral norms required for group membership.
Media, including books, movies, music, and social media, also expose people to values and beliefs, shaping their understanding of the world.
Jacobsen: If people are using social media from super young ages and seeing them used from a young age, what is the impact on the development of personality?
Rutledge: Personality development is influenced by many factors: biological, intellectual, social, cultural, and situational. Social media is just one source of influence, and research in this area is correlational, not causal. In other words, things may be related, but that doesn’t answer the chicken-and-egg question of whether one causes the other or if there are other factors involved.
Social media, however, exposes users to images and lifestyles that can lead to negative social comparison. Social comparison, by the way, is a normal response to social situations and part of our survival instinct. Assessing our roles in a social environment was a critical factor in our survival and, in many senses, still is. Our ability to read what others want, empathize with their situations, and understand group dynamics is central to our ability to navigate our social world.
Much of the concern about social media comes from assuming that it triggers negative social comparison in all users, thus damaging self-esteem and body image. These types of generalizations are vastly overstated.
Jacobsen: Does excessive social media use make people more self-involved digitally impair or improve empathy and narcissistic tendencies, lead to a idealized sense of self rather than a genuine one, impact the perception of everyone on individuals’ lives other than their own and potentially, lead to something like a constant validation loop?
Rutledge: Before I answer each of those questions, I want to emphasize that social media use does not have a binary influence: this or that, all or nothing. No social media effects impact ALL users, and not all effects are the same. In fact, there are many different forms of social media with different participation and consumption behaviors (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, video games, WhatsApp, forums, blogs, etc.).
Almost all social media research is self-reported and correlational. A correlation is a relationship, but it is not causal or directional. All research is based on probabilities of something happening, not a certain outcome (e.g., “is likely to,” not “is”). So, a study that says excessive social media use is more likely to make people more self-involved would also say that more self-involved people are more likely to use social media excessively. This is true of concerns over mental health, narcissism, idealized self and identity development, inauthentic sense of self, and reliance on social validation of others. Research findings vary a lot based on how the researcher asks the questions and defines the variables. For example, what is “excessive” social media use?
But let’s focus on some fundamentals. Social media is relatively new, so people don’t innately have the skills to manage an always-on digital world with limitless information and access to a wider public than we can even conceive. Our brains were not designed for this, which makes all of us, not just young people, vulnerable and reactive unless we learn the skills to anticipate our innate, primal tendencies and step into self-manage. Our brains are wired to notice change, to focus our attention on things that are out of the ordinary, to attend to interruptions (warnings), especially if they have a social component, to seek an understanding of our social and physical environment, and to adapt our behaviors to be fit in with our desired social groups. All these innate tendencies were essential to our survival back in the Savannah.
When talking about kids, combine these innate factors with normal biological and neurological changes over their lifespan, and it helps understand the development tasks that shift motivations as people mature. For example, the normal developmental tasks of adolescents are identity development and the building of a social life outside the nuclear family. Recognizing this, it makes sense that teens would be focused on social media, connecting with friends, and keeping up with pop cultural trends to maintain social capital. Teens also do not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex, so they are less able to value longer-term goals and outcomes in favor of near-term rewards.
The best approaches for keeping kids healthy and safe online are to give them training and the tools to understand and navigate the digital space and establish an open and trusting line of communication between parents and kids. Suppression and bans only make technology more desirable while making it less likely kids will come to you when there’s a problem.
When young people can reflect on their technology use and its effect on their lives through the lens of digital literacy, they gain valuable skills essential to success on and offline. For example, digital literacy teaches how persuasive technology manipulates attention, the psychology of positive and negative social comparisons, how to identify information sources and validity, how to search for information effectively, how to manage privacy settings, strategies for dealing with conflict, bullies, and trolls, and how to translate personal values, like respect, compassion, and empathy, to online behavior. Armed with digital literacy skills, young people are much less likely to have problematic social media use and much more likely to be able to avoid or at least handle trouble, misinformation, scams, and bullies.
Jacobsen: Does excessive social media use make people more self-involved or more other-involved?
Rutledge: Social media can do both, depending on the context, how people use it, and their self-awareness. People who are vulnerable to the opinions of others may become preoccupied with fitting in, whether that’s looks, clothes, or gaming skills. On the other hand, social media can make people aware of social issues around the world, expanding someone’s view of self and others.
Jacobsen: Does media consumption digitally impair or improve factors like empathy and narcissistic tendencies?
Rutledge: Social media consumption has been related to both. Social media has been associated with an increased ability to understand and share others’ feelings and increase compassion, encouraging perspective-taking. However, empathy has been shown to decrease when social media is linked with polarization by reinforcing preexisting beliefs and reducing cognitive flexibility. It has also been linked to diminished empathy through desensitization to tragedy through constant exposure.
Jacobsen: How does online presentation, typically, lead to a idealized, curated form of the Self rather than a genuine, realistic one?
Rutledge: Online presentation typically leads to an idealized, curated demonstration of the self rather than a genuine, realistic one. People are motivated to show a positive and desirable public image, often leading them to select and edit the content they share carefully. This phenomenon is not unique to social media. People also curate their looks when they go to many offline activities, e.g., job interviews and parties, to present a desirable version of themselves that aligns with social norms and expectations.
The pressure to conform can lead to idealized standards of appearance, lifestyle, and achievement that, if internalized, can lead to increased social anxiety and can negatively impact self-esteem and self-worth. However, online platforms can also provide opportunities for self-expression and aspiration that have a positive impact.
Jacobsen: How does this impact the perception of everyone on individuals’ lives other than their own?
Rutledge: Without critical thinking, people may see social media like Instagram as an accurate representation of life rather than an artificial (and often filtered) construct. This can activate negative emotions, such as jealousy or feeling inferior, or it can be inspirational, depending on the user’s focus. The key here is critical thinking, knowledge of technology, like filters, and recognizing the human tendency for social comparison to provide context for content interpretation.
Jacobsen: Do these, potentially lead to something like a constant validation loop? They have to keep up with the next hot or popular trend.
Rutledge: The “constant validation loop” describes a cycle where people seek constant external validation through likes, comments, and shares on their posts, leading to an unhealthy reliance on social media for self-worth. When we receive positive feedback online, our brains release dopamine, creating a sense of pleasure and reward, reinforcing the behavior, and motivating us to seek more validation. Instant feedback offers a quick boost to our self-esteem, but the feeling is not sustained. Similarly, when we constantly measure our lives against the often idealized lives of others, it can increase feelings of inadequacy, also leading to a greater need for validation to fill the void.
Social validation is not restricted to online experiences. We see it every day in schools, the office, and community organizations—who has the most money, the best clothes, the fastest car, the smartest children, etc. The potential negatives of an unhealthy reliance on external validation include low self-esteem, addiction, anxiety, depression, and dissatisfaction with self or life.
There are, however, strategies to recognize and manage this tendency. These include building awareness of how your social media use and need for validation impact your well-being, setting boundaries (like blocking negative triggers) and limiting the time spent on social media platforms, focusing on internal validation by cultivating self-compassion, appreciating your strengths and accomplishments, finding activities that make you feel happy and fulfilled, such as spending time with loved ones, pursuing hobbies, or engaging in physical activity.
Jacobsen: How does anonymity in some areas of the internet impact treatment of self and others, so social interactions?
Rutledge: Anonymity plays a significant role in crowd behavior, often leading to people acting differently than they would alone or in smaller, more identifiable groups. This is deindividuation, where people lose their sense of self-awareness and personal identity within a crowd, reducing their sense of responsibility and increasing conformity to group norms. The more people want to belong to a group, the more likely they are to suppress their individual sense of self and conform to the group norms.
Motivations for seeking anonymity online vary. Individuals with negative or developing self-perceptions may be drawn to anonymity because it gives them the freedom to explore different personas to fulfill self-related or identity needs. Individuals struggling with self-consciousness, social anxiety, and low self-esteem also tend to prefer anonymity online. In contrast, people with darker personality traits use anonymity online to satisfy more antisocial goals, like deceiving or bullying others.
Jacobsen: How can social media be used to encourage prosocial behaviours?
Rutledge: Digital literacy is the first step in promoting prosocial online behaviors. It emphasizes the responsible use of technology and online safety and encourages critical thinking. When it comes to young people, parents can model the kind of behavior they’d like to see their kids emulate, from device use to treating others with respect.
Prosocial behavior involves actions that are intended to help or benefit others. There is no line between online and offline in today’s world. Digital citizenship is just an extension of the behavior we want to see and teach in person. Prosocial actions can be encouraged at home, at school, and at work by emphasizing the importance of a range of actions, from simple acts of kindness, such as sharing or comforting a friend, to more complex behaviors like volunteering or standing up against injustice.
Publicly valuing prosocial behavior can shift social norms and culture and has numerous benefits. It not only promotes positive relationships and a sense of belonging but also fosters emotional well-being and resilience. People who engage in prosocial behavior tend to have higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction.
Jacobsen: What have been the largest cultural impacts of social media technology to date, and will likely be those large cultural changes stemming from them in the near future?
Rutledge: Social media has significantly influenced culture by shaping social interactions, communication, expectations, and societal values.
Global connectivity has allowed people from different cultures and backgrounds to connect, share ideas, and collaborate. The rapid dissemination of information on social media has transformed how news is shared and consumed. This immediacy can lead to greater awareness of global and social events, but the volume of information also leads to information bubbles and the spread of misinformation.
Changes in how people communicate have driven expectations toward shorter, visual forms of communication like memes, gifs, and videos and rapid response.
Exposure to curated representations of others’ lives can lead to feelings of inadequacy and negative social comparison, impacting self-esteem and mental health for some users but providing opportunities for connecting with people that were previously beyond our reach.
Social media platforms allow anyone to create and share content, leading to a diversification of voices and perspectives that challenge traditional media narratives and also to the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation with the potential for influencing political landscapes and bad actors.
Digital literacy and accountability are necessary for us to benefit from the positives and limit the negatives.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Pamela.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/15
Chip Lupois an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo discussed the dynamics of dating in the U.S., noting that 46% of adults are unmarried. Dating costs have risen due to inflation and location-based economic factors. Cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Seattle attract singles with fun and recreation, even if economics are challenging. Tinder’s popularity, broadband access, and smartphone usage significantly impact dating opportunities. Economic pressures, particularly in low-income areas, influence dating activity, while wealthier cities face demographic challenges. Cultural and economic trends in thriving metro areas like Seattle, Atlanta, and Las Vegas shape their appeal to singles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we are here for the third day in a row with Chip Lupo, a WalletHub analyst. This discussion is a bit more lighthearted compared to the topic of elder abuse we covered last time.
I deal with a lot of human rights abuse issues, which can be quite heavy most of the time. So, it’s refreshing to discuss a lighter topic like this. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of the U.S. adult population is unmarried. This category includes those who have never been married, divorced, or widowed.
This statistic has created interesting American dating and marital landscape dynamics. Additionally, date-related activities have risen in price over the years due to inflation and other economic factors. So, what explains this trend of 46% of adults being unmarried in the United States? And why has dating become so prohibitively expensive?
Lupo: To address the second part of your question, dating has become more expensive primarily due to inflation. Depending on where you live, the cost of living may be higher, contributing to the expense. Whether it’s a trip to the movies, a sporting event, or a museum, factors like travel costs and the overall cost of living play a significant role. This can make dating quite costly, particularly in cities with abundant activities for singles.
The best cities for singles typically balance affordability with fun and recreation. As you mentioned, the unmarried demographic is diverse, encompassing those who have never married and those who are divorced or widowed. What appeals to one segment of this group may not resonate with another.
WalletHub’s research ranks the best cities for singles based on economics, fun and recreation, and dating opportunities. The top cities include Atlanta, Georgia; Las Vegas, Nevada; Seattle, Washington; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Tampa, Florida. These cities rank highly, especially for their fun and recreational offerings, which often outweigh economic considerations.
You’re correct in observing that these cities emphasize fun and recreation, which offsets the financial challenges. The best cities tend to achieve a balance, but fun and recreation often take precedence. For instance, Atlanta and Las Vegas rank first and second in the fun and recreation category. However, Atlanta is slightly more expensive overall.
Dating opportunities. Now, this is an interesting dynamic, especially regarding dating opportunities. That boils down to factors such as, first and foremost, the share of the single population. There are some cities — and we’re talking strictly about cities, not the surrounding metro areas — where this dynamic plays out differently. This limitation negatively affects some high-population cities that are closer to larger urban areas.
Dating opportunities also consider the share of the single population, gender balance, and online dating opportunities. By “online dating opportunities,” we mean the share of households with broadband internet, enabling residents to access dating websites or apps. Mobile dating follows a similar logic and measures the share of residents who own a smartphone.
An interesting metric is Google search traffic for “Tinder.” Tinder is a social media outlet, and this metric measures the percentage of residents in a city who search for Tinder the most. If a city scores relatively high in these two areas, it can offset low economic scores. For instance, you mentioned Seattle, Washington. Its economics rank is 173rd out of 182 cities, yet it ranks 5th in dating opportunities and 9th in fun and recreation. This balance makes a difference.
Let’s look at another example. Last week, I talked to someone in Florida who wanted to know how their cities fare. Miami, Florida, was particularly interesting. It ranks 3rd in “things to do,” yet 176th in economics. It’s a very expensive place to live.
Despite being so expensive, Miami still manages to rank 15th overall. Miami could easily make the top 10 or even the top 5 if it were more affordable.
Jacobsen: When breaking down the weighting of factors, the main categories are economics, fun and recreation, and dating opportunities. The first two categories are each weighted at 25%, while dating opportunities are weighted at 50%. Interestingly, dating opportunities have the fewest subcategories but carry the most weight. These subcategories include the share of the single population, gender balance, online dating opportunities, mobile dating opportunities, and Google search traffic for the term “Tinder.”
Why are those subcategories, such as metrics 31 through 35, given so much weight when considering the overall picture of cities and singles?
Lupo: Dating opportunities are the most critical criteria for single people seeking a significant other. Single individuals want to know if they’re in an environment surrounded by like-minded, single people. For example, if you’re single and living in a place like Scottsdale, Arizona — I’m just throwing this out there — or any other city known as a retirement haven, it might not be ideal if you’re in your twenties and surrounded by an older single population.
This is why dating opportunities are so important. They directly influence whether a city attracts singles looking for meaningful connections.
JWhat chance do I have of meeting someone in my city based on gender balance and the shared single population? And, of course, factors like internet and phone access—would I be able to join certain dating sites? Would those sites be accessible?
Jacobsen: It seems like these factors weigh more heavily than the others. Also, using Tinder as a search metric is particularly interesting since so many dating apps are available. Why was Tinder chosen, and were other apps considered for inclusion in that metric?
Lupo: Well, I can’t say for sure, Scott, but from what I understand, Tinder is considered the gold standard for social media among singles. I assume it’s the most interactive, though that’s a guess. Its metrics carry double weight in the analysis, so there must be something significant about it.
Jacobsen: Let me clarify for the audience. There are no financial conflicts of interest regarding this research, correct?
Lupo: Correct.
Jacobsen: Is there a point where economics becomes an overwhelming factor in dating opportunities? The top-ranked cities for singles don’t always do well in economics. However, they still provide plenty of opportunities. People are taking advantage of these opportunities despite the economic challenges. Do you notice a point in the statistics where economics significantly affects how willing people are to use dating apps or go on dates?
Lupo: There is such a point, but it’s more reflective of the overall economics of the city. For instance, a city like Tampa, Florida, has a relatively strong economy and an economics rank of 110. In contrast, Portland, Oregon, ranks 150. If you’re in a low-income city or state, the breaking point for economic pressure comes sooner than in a place with higher income or strong
Even in cities like New York City or Washington, D.C.—which have extremely high living costs—higher wages can sometimes offset the economic challenges. Washington, D.C., for example, ranks 179th in economics, but because it’s a world health hub with relatively high incomes, some of those pressures are mitigated. However, if you’re single, a student, or earning a lower income, the breaking point could still come much sooner in high-cost cities like D.C.
Jacobsen: Why do we find that people still aren’t going on dates in some wealthy cities?
Lupo: That’s an interesting question. Even in rich cities, economic pressures still exist for certain demographics, especially students or young professionals who aren’t yet earning high wages. Social and cultural factors also play a role in influencing whether people feel comfortable or inclined to date actively.
Again, it depends on the environment and how you define “single.” Someone who is divorced, for instance, might be more eager to get back into the dating scene, especially in places like Washington, D.C., or New York City. If for no other reason, perhaps to keep up appearances.
That would be my guess as well. By the way, I just checked—New York City ranks dead last in economics at 182nd but ranks 4th in fun and recreation. So, there’s a balance there. Folks in New York have to decide: there’s much to do here, but at what point does affordability limit those opportunities?
Jacobsen: Right. I’ve used Tinder before, and New York might have one of the biggest user bases for the app. People find a way regardless of the cost. Are there any cultural consistencies between Seattle, Atlanta, and Las Vegas?
Lupo: Cultural? Well, one consistency is that these three cities are thriving metro areas. Their populations have exploded over the last 10 years, making them up-and-coming hubs that continue to grow. Economically, at least for Atlanta and Seattle, there’s solid job growth. I don’t know about Las Vegas beyond the gaming industry.
Still, these cities share a common thread. People flocking to them from other areas are attracted by opportunities and quality of life. While the economic rankings differ—Seattle ranks 103rd, and Las Vegas is 140th—they all have plenty of things to do. These sprawling urban areas offer various activities, making them attractive for singles and families.
Jacobsen: Hey, Chip, I appreciate your time today.
Lupo: Oh, glad to be here! It’s always a pleasure.
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate your insights. I’ll keep an eye on my emails, and if I come across anything else of interest, I’ll reach out so we can talk again.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/14
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.
Nasrudin Salim is the Co-Founder, COO and CTO of Chatoyance. He has worked in the financial trading and banking industry specializing in machine learning and previously headed the ML operations team in DBS Bank, led AI architecture in OCBC Bank, the 2 of the largest banks in Singapore and Asia and was VP of Engineering in Almanak which uses AI agents for on-chain trading in web3. His specialty is in building machine learning and AI systems at scale and also in real-time processing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did you two meet?
Daniel Shea: We first met in 2012 in a high IQ society called Torr. Nasrudin had posted an internal message to the group about his recent experiences trading on the foreign exchange market, and I followed up with my own. We discussed more offline, then started working on independent trading projects with each other. One such project was a platform that allowed us to automatically mirror each other’s trades via a central server with which our separate trading platforms would communicate. We then realized we could scale this up to a wider audience, and Chatoyance was born.
Nasrudin Salim: In 2012, I was an 18 year old back then, having started trading at the age 14 with my parent’s money. I did a bit of bitcoin and forex and found success during a time when the market was not as volatile and full of trading agents and bots like today. I posted some insights into a high IQ society called Torr which had a minimum IQ requirement to join at 146, percentile at the 99.87th. Dan replied to some of my posts and we realized we both approached trading from a systems engineering perspective. At first we did simple trading projects, and then later we came to the idea of building a sort of trade sharing collective. Dan did most of the work initially as I didn’t know how to code much back then but grew rapidly later. We started building custom integrations to mirror each other’s trades on the popular platform MetaTrader 4. Then eventually it was about mirroring everyone in a group, not just one-way but bidirectional as many-to-many communication.
Jacobsen: What was the origin of the idea for Chatoyance?
Shea: Chatoyance initially started as a social trading platform which, as mentioned, was itself started as a means for us to share trades in real-time. This gradually evolved into a platform that generated trading strategies based on predefined characteristics using genetic programming. Though these two services would seem quite distinct, there are some core similarities, chief among them being the idea that many strategies operating in parallel outweigh a lone strategy over time and that there is a constant need to reevaluate and cycle out strategies as market conditions evolve.
Nasrudin Salim: Early on, we thought, “why limit these mirrored trades to just us?” Both of us were layering signals, blending sentiment and quant metrics. The strategy seemed scalable and liquidity was deep. The original concept was basically a distributed, real-time signal exchange. It was like a sandbox where multiple strategies or traders could compete, evolve, and reinforce each other. As the system matured, we introduced genetic programming to shape custom strategies on the fly. So, from the start, the seed idea was that multiple concurrent approaches can minimize single-strategy fragility. That’s how Chatoyance was born.
Jacobsen: How has the business and technology, and software, landscape for Chatoyance’s focus changed in the last ten years?
Shea: There is certainly more competition in this space now than there was one decade ago. This is likely due to the lower barrier to entry and a hype cycle when it comes to AI. Some of the core tech has changed over time to reflect advances in the field. But another change has been the interest in different asset classes over time. Our software is designed to accommodate currency pairs, equities, commodities, cryptocurrencies, and more, but interest from clients has shifted over the years. Forex was the initial interest one decade ago. These days, equities and cryptocurrencies are asked about more regularly.
Nasrudin Salim: The stack is radically different. A decade ago, market data pipelines were heavier and less real-time. Now, I have a cheap feed of tick-level crypto, forex, equities and also options data and can run complex ML models, even LLMs directly on live streams. Cloud infra matured, open-source AI toolkits exploded, and more competition due to now a lower barrier to entry. We’ve seen forex become less sexy and crypto become standard for high-risk plays. I had to ensure the underlying architecture scales to new asset classes fluidly. We’re definitely dealing with a more fragmented but also more flexible ecosystem.
Jacobsen: How is machine learning and AI built into the business?
Shea: The core product that we offer to clients is a service that automates the construction of trading strategies based on current market conditions. Additional tiers involve full portfolios, that is to say many strategies of different trading styles or risk tolerances per the desires of the client, and strategies that evolve as market conditions change over time, owing to the fact that any strategy which works in the short term is unlikely to hold for long. This is ultimately done by leveraging AI. That is said with the full acknowledgement that the term “AI” can be quite loaded and overused these days, often used to placate certain audiences. Despite the current implications of the term, there is indeed no better term to describe what is being done. With that said, just about anyone could develop an application that outputs strategies by the end of a weekend-long hackathon. The breadth of technical indicators used, entry and exit strategy logic employed, optimization criteria supported, money management strategies considered, and robust filtering logic included all coalesces to form a more comprehensive offering than competing organizations.
Nasrudin Salim: We apply ML from the ground up. Every piece of the puzzle from market microstructure to anomaly detection, dynamic portfolio rebalancing. We mix between simple algorithms, genetic optimization to traditional machine learning, then to reinforcement learning and now LLMs. The key is continual learning. Strategies adapt as new conditions emerge and so do the humans who now build how these strategies are going to adapt. Like including meta-learning concepts, model ensembles, and reinforcement signals. The result is that you’re not stuck with stale logic. It morphs as volatility regimes shift or as new liquidity venues pop up.
Jacobsen: How does Chatoyance build more social trading into the trader networks?
Shea: The first iteration of Chatoyance was a more social experience. The idea was that there would be different trading rooms, and members of these rooms would automatically copy each other’s trades through our software. There would be safeguards in place, such as the option of enabling private rooms, muting certain traders so they could only receive trades but not contribute any to the group themselves, and so on. The idea was that, if you had a room of traders each interacting with the markets, the collective gains would outweigh the collective losses, resulting in everyone benefiting from the participants’ engagement.
The business model was that users registered with an affiliated broker, and thus commission was collected on each trade. Since a single trade was replicated for each user in a trading room, this meant a single action from a user could result in wider commissions due to each member simultaneously opening or closing the trade.
In practice, this was not quite the case. Often, people would join trading rooms and wait for others to make the first move. Those who were more experienced did not feel a motivation to contribute trades without some clearer incentive. Some ideas, such as profit sharing on commission, were proposed, but ultimately, if someone is skilled at swing trading the markets, they are more likely to go into fund management themselves than potentially risk it all on some other member running a huge drawdown.
So the idea was ultimately scrapped after several months. However, the idea of many traders bringing their own strategies to a collective single trading room has a spiritual line to our later concept of automated strategy generation with distinct trading personalities, together constructing an automated portfolio.
Nasrudin Salim: We learned that simple social mirroring wasn’t sticky. Traders either lurk or they just want someone’s edge without giving their own. So instead, we integrated the “social” element into a collaborative network of AI-driven strategy modules. Each “node” in the network is like a trader with a personality. From maybe momentum-focused, or mean-reversion-heavy, and they collaborate by sharing signals and outcomes. It’s less about people copying each other and more about these agent-like strategies feeding into each other’s learning loops, evolving collectively to handle shifting regimes. It’s social trading, but via synthetic participant strategies rather than pure human interaction.
Jacobsen: How do you do risk management?
Shea: Risk management is particular to the client, but there are many levers to pull when assessing one’s risk tolerance. Risk management can range from high-level goals, such as drawdown thresholds and Sharpe ratio targets, to finer-grained details such as exit strategies, money management strategies, partial entries and exits, and more. Many times, people will state that they want a high-risk high-reward strategy, but suddenly get cold feet at the first sight of what that risk entails. There is an element of getting to the heart of one’s true risk tolerance before crafting a template that generates appropriate strategies.
Nasrudin Salim: Risk management is programmatic and multi-layered. For crypto, for example, I might impose real-time volatility-adjusted position limits. For a more traditional asset, we might weigh by a blend of sector correlation risk and liquidity depth. The user sets broad tolerances like max drawdown or desired sorting ratio. From there, the ML system translates that into execution-level heuristics. The idea is we fuse top-down constraints with bottom-up adaptive strategies.
Jacobsen: How do fractals play into financial markets?
Shea: Fractals are one indicator among many that are baked into the product. The algorithm may use fractals depending on market conditions, but may not. The interest in fractals in particular comes from an old technical indicator that was published to the MQL Marketplace (https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/4131). However, in the current iteration of the product, it is not highlighted any more prominently than additional indicators, ranging from the standard basket (ADX, ATR, CCI, EMA, MACD, RSI, etc.) to the more esoteric (candlestick patterns, Fibonacci retracements, Elliott Waves, etc.) depending on the interests of the client.
Nasrudin Salim: Maybe fractal-based signals matter in certain trending conditions or where micro-structure has repeating patterns. if the system thinks fractals add incremental predictive power given current conditions, it’ll use them. As one of the architects of Chatoyance, I add it as just another tool that our systems could use, and the choice is autonomous. If not, it won’t. We never rely on a single tool. Everything competes on a data-driven meritocracy.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges facing technology-driven financial companies?
Shea: At least from the conversations I have with others in this space, I notice that there is often an overreliance on technical indicators at the cost of fundamentals. This makes sense from a programmatic perspective as engineers can readily integrate these into their models. With that said, the fusion of technicals and fundamentals is necessary to arrive at a more holistic view of the market, all of which serves to only improve the outputs of the algorithm.
Nasrudin Salim: One of the big ones is bridging the gap between what’s quantifiable and what’s real. Pure technical systems might ignore underlying credit conditions, macro news, or liquidity crises until it’s too late. Also, data noise, market manipulation, and wild regulatory shifts can break your models. It’s crucial to design adaptive frameworks that don’t assume static conditions. We’re constantly at war with overfitting and model drift. Especially in cryptocurrency where a lot of the movements originate from insider activity and information found in web3 ‘Cabals’ that exists as Telegram group chats, which can only be joined through connections or NFT purchases.
Jacobsen: What are the guiding principles of Chatoyance?
Shea: It is deceptively simple to say that one’s financial goals are just to “make lots of money.” As discussed earlier, people may feel confident moving forward with a high-risk high-reward strategy at first, only to recoil at the first drop. This isn’t entirely unexpected; after all, a safer market experience would be to invest in a set-and-forget whole market ETF. To pursue these strategies is to expect higher reward at the cost of higher risk. However, even in this more narrow range of higher risk tolerance, there is a wide window of consideration and opportunity. We ultimately aim to reconcile this risk-reward trade-off on a per-client basis and arrive at a portfolio that doesn’t fail to impress.
Nasrudin Salim: We want to democratize robust strategy generation. It’s not just “make money fast.” it’s “craft a strategy that aligns with your true risk appetite and thrives under evolving conditions.” We want to give clients a toolkit that doesn’t lock them into a fixed view of markets. Instead, we shape a pipeline that constantly checks itself like adjusting parameters, evaluating signals, pruning weak strategies, doubling down on robust ones.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Shea: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to highlight what we have built! This space moves slow and then fast all at once. The journey has been edifying, humbling, and exhilarating. We have many years behind us and are looking forward to many more.
Nasrudin Salim: Happy to share what we’re up to. It’s been good to lay it all out.
Chatoyance Pte. Ltd. (“Chatoyance”) The materials and data contained on this website and any related mobile application are for information only and shall in no event be construed as an offer to purchase or sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell, any securities in any jurisdiction. Chatoyance does not make any representation, undertaking, warranty, or guarantee as to the timeliness, completeness, correctness, reliability, or accuracy of the materials and data herein. Certain statements made on this Site may not be based on historical information or facts and may be “forward looking statements”. Actual investment results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including future changes or developments in the business of a company featured on this Site or other political, economic, legal, and social conditions. All opinions, forecasts, or estimates expressed herein are subject to change without prior notice. Chatoyance and its affiliates accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss and/or damages arising out of or in relation to any use of opinions, forecasts, materials, and data contained herein or otherwise arising in connection therewith.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/13
Vlada Polishchuk, Canadian Development Manager for Dignitas Fund, talked about her mission and efforts. Dignitas operates in Ukraine and the U.S., focusing on training, supplying drones, and providing humanitarian aid like mobile laundry units. Polishchuk’s role involves fostering collaborations, raising awareness, and exploring Canadian expansion. She highlighted the challenges of declining donations after years of conflict and the need for innovative approaches to fundraising. Despite political shifts, established donor trust has been key. Polishchuk expressed concerns over worsening conditions in Ukraine and emphasized the urgency of global support to counter aggression and safeguard broader regional stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your role?
Vlada Polishchuk: I volunteer with Dignitas Fund as the Canadian Development Manager.
Jacobsen: What does that role involve, and what is the scope of Dignitas?
Polishchuk: Currently, Dignitas operates through two charitable organizations: in the United States as Dignitas Ukraine, and in Ukraine as Dignitas Fund. Essentially, we are one team of motivated people. We are now taking steps to explore the potential for establishing operations and collaborations in Canada.
My role involves
fostering potential collaborations,
facilitating the exchange of experiences and
raising awareness about the work of Dignitas.
Jacobsen: When it comes to Dignitas Canada, is Canada the home base or an extension of Dignitas?
Polishchuk: We currently operate primarily in Ukraine and the U.S. In Canada, we would function as an extension of the organization. However, we are actively exploring developing a stronger presence here.
I would love to see a fully established Dignitas Canada one day.
Jacobsen: What about products? What kind of products do you provide, what do they do, and how is this funded?
Polishchuk: Our product management efforts are focused on supporting Ukrainians. We supply drones, and we have launched initiatives to enhance training efforts. For example, our Flight to Recovery program empowers veterans through simulation and FPV drone training.
Additionally, we have implemented projects like providing mobile laundry units to aid those in need. Our work is focused on the first responders and defenders of Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian veterans, with an overall focus on helping Ukraine win this war through technological advancements. These efforts aim to save lives, strengthen defences, and protect people, with the ultimate goal of achieving victory for Ukraine and safeguarding its sovereignty.
Jacobsen: Are the operations in Ukraine different from those in the U.S.?
Polishchuk: Yes, the operations differ significantly. Dignitas conducts training programs in Ukraine, particularly in the eastern regions and other key locations. Most of our operations are centred in Ukraine, focusing on direct support and on-the-ground initiatives.
Our primary focus in the U.S. is fundraising. We are now expanding these efforts to Canada and seeking investors and collaborators.
Jacobsen: How is the search for investors going in Canada?
Polishchuk: The search has been progressing well. I joined Dignitas about a month ago, and it has been an active and productive start. I’ve met many interesting individuals—some from Canada, others from Europe or Ukraine.
Even though my primary focus is on Canada, I’ve found myself connecting with a global network of people. It’s fascinating to see how interconnected this work is. Many of my contacts have ties to Ukraine or other parts of the world. I’m optimistic that we will see positive outcomes from these efforts within the next month or so.
I can’t disclose more than that, but it’s exciting. I’m confident that, by doing so, we will raise awareness about what we are doing and make a significant difference in the direction of things.
Jacobsen: What are the struggles that come up in fundraising? Every organization with someone trying to make contacts for investors will probably get more “no’s” than “yeses.” So, how do you pursue this?
Polishchuk: Absolutely. Overall, Maria Berlinska, one of our cofounders, has been working on raising awareness about drones since around 2014 or 2015.
At that time, people were like, “What are you talking about?” because discussing drones felt like something new and unfamiliar. I wouldn’t say people took it seriously back then. It was challenging to move in that direction.
Dignitas is well-established in Ukraine and known in the U.S. In terms of fundraising, we have many established investors who trust us. We ensure transparency and inform them about our progress and plans to maintain engagement.
However, after three years of the full-scale invasion, we have observed a decline in donations and support. This motivates us to be even more creative and push harder to meet our goals.
Jacobsen: Does the political context of various Western countries influence your strategies for outreach to funders? For instance, if a new prime minister or president exists in one of the major funding countries, does that factor into your planning?
Polishchuk: With our currently established network, I don’t think it significantly affects our context. We have built trust with our donors and prioritize transparency about our costs, plans, and ongoing efforts.
Polishchuk: Our focus is on deepening and expanding our work. The people who donate to us are already on our side, supporting what we do regardless of political shifts in their countries.
Jacobsen: Does the leadership in countries, such as new presidents or prime ministers, influence your efforts?
Polishchuk: It doesn’t make that big of a difference for our trusted donors, but influences how we target large scales in terms of people. Our cause can be positioned relative to different leaders and so influences support.
If the leadership takes an approach that does not prioritize Ukraine’s fight for resources and strength to push back against aggression, it impacts public opinion, actions, and even digital donations on a larger scale.
We’ve also observed a decline in the frequency of conversations about Ukraine. People are becoming desensitized to what’s happening. However, the intensity of the attacks or the frontline situation has remained the same. The situation has worsened.
For example, last year, in 2023, when I was in Ukraine, the Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka regions were relatively safer. You could still travel there, breathe, and feel a moment of normalcy despite the chaos. Now, these areas are at the center of the conflict, frequently appearing in the news. The scale of destruction is insane, and Russian forces are progressing at an alarming speed.
It’s heartbreaking to see places I have warm memories of—charming towns and villages—now devastated. The scale of the destruction is staggering. It’s clear that if we slow down our efforts, things will only worsen.
I’m curious about what 2025 might look like if we don’t push as hard as we can and take this situation seriously. From my point of view, this isn’t just a threat to Ukraine—it’s a threat to other countries as well.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Vlada.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/12
Chip Lupois an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo talks about 2024’s neediest cities in the United States. WalletHub analyzed 182 cities using 28 key indicators of economic disadvantage, such as child poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, and health metrics. Cities like Detroit, Gulfport, and Brownsville rank poorly in economic well-being and health indicators. Faith-based nonprofits, like the Salvation Army, are critical in providing support. Lupo emphasizes significant gaps between cities, such as a 30-times difference in homelessness rates. Seasonal needs spike in winter and summer due to extreme weather. Solutions require local leadership and grassroots action to address these issues effectively.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here again with Chip Lupo of WalletHub. We will be talking about 2024’s neediest cities in the United States. So, how do we define neediness in the United States?
Chip Lupo: Okay, Scott. We analyzed 182 U.S. cities—these are the largest cities by population—based on 28 key indicators of economic disadvantage. This includes everything from child poverty, food insecurity, and uninsured rates to other factors that help us understand where Americans need the most support.
Jacobsen: And when they’re looking for support, what are the main social supports? What are the main economic supports? What are the main religious or institutional supports? In other words, what are some concrete ways these needs are being met, with specific examples?
Lupo: It’s interesting you bring that up because there seems to be a trend where people are increasingly turning to faith-based institutions for support. In many urban and low-income areas—which we’ll discuss in more detail—there’s a perception that government policies have not provided sufficient help.
When we talk about economics specifically, we mean child poverty rates, adult poverty rates, unemployment rates, homelessness rates, bankruptcy rates, and foreclosure rates. So, people often look within their communities or turn to faith-based institutions for assistance. Initial government efforts may have been well-intentioned in many of these areas but have yet to catch up over time.
Jacobsen: And now, with overall religion in the United States declining—whether in terms of total numbers, attendance, or adherence to faith-based practices—are we still seeing an increasing reliance on these institutions? Or are they as impactful as they’ve always been regarding social provisions?
Lupo: They’re about as impactful as they’ve always been. However, we’re not necessarily talking about formal religious institutions like churches. We’re referring more to faith-based nonprofit groups—organizations like the Salvation Army.
These types of charitable organizations, which are faith-based to some extent, are relied upon more frequently now. Of course, because the demand for their services is so high, many of these groups are stretched thin. They depend heavily on donations and volunteer support to keep their operations running and to serve these communities.
Jacobsen: What do you notice about some of the neediest cities, like Detroit, Michigan, Gulfport, Mississippi, and Brownsville, Texas?
Lupo: These cities consistently rank poorly in two main areas: economic well-being and health and safety. We touched on economic well-being earlier—factors like poverty, unemployment, and foreclosure rates.
Regarding health and safety, we’re looking at indicators like the uninsured rate, the share of severely overcrowded homes, and the percentage of adults who needed to see a doctor but couldn’t afford to. Other indicators include depression rates, suicide rates, and crime rates.
The three cities you mentioned—Detroit, Gulfport, and Brownsville—consistently rank among the lowest in economic, health, and safety indicators. Their rankings in these areas place them among the neediest cities in the United States.
Jacobsen: What are you weighing more—economics or health and safety—for neediness?
Lupo: Those two are equal; they’re the two main dynamics. Now, within each, we have metrics that carry different weights. For example, with economic well-being, we assign triple weight to metrics such as child, adult, and homelessness rates. We give full weight to metrics such as unemployment and underemployment.
That’s key because, in many of these areas, people may have jobs, but those jobs are often several levels below their qualifications. For example, you may have a master’s degree in a specific field but can’t find work there. As a result, you take a lower-paying job or something far below what your qualifications merit.
We also assign full weight to high school dropout rate and median credit score indicators. Consumer bankruptcies receive half weight, while economic security also receives half weight.
In the health and safety dimension, uninsured rates and food insecurity rates get full weight. This is critical in what are now being called food deserts—areas where access to quality produce or supermarkets is severely limited. In many cases, crime in these areas is so rampant that supermarkets close or relocate because they can’t sustain business under those conditions.
We also assign full weight to indicators like the share of severely overcrowded homes and the share of adults who needed to see a doctor but couldn’t afford to.
But, to answer your question directly—on a scale of 100, economic well-being gets 60 points, and health and safety gets 40 points. So, it does tilt slightly more toward economics because it’s likely a more accurate gauge of neediness in these areas.
Jacobsen: And how are the worst-performing cities looking in terms of child and adult poverty rates?
Lupo: Let’s see. For child poverty rate:
Detroit, Michigan ranks 2nd worst,
Gulfport, Mississippi, is 8th from the bottom, and
Brownsville, Texas, is 14th from the bottom.
For adult poverty rate:
Detroit has the highest rate,
Gulfport ranks 8th highest, and
Brownsville is the 10th highest.
Detroit also has the highest underemployment rate.
Jacobsen: How long have you been conducting this particular neediness study?
Lupo: To my knowledge, I can recall that we’ve been doing it for at least 2 or 3 years, as far as. It may go back even further. I’d check with Diana on that one, but we’ve conducted this study as far back as 2020.
Jacobsen: And what about unemployment and uninsured rates? How do these factor into the degree to which some of these worst-performing cities are addressing the needs of their citizens?
Lupo: Okay. For unemployment:
Detroit has the highest unemployment rate at almost 7.5%.
Gulfport ranks 121st, which is relatively good out of 182 cities.
Brownsville ranks 19th worst.
For underemployment:
Detroit ranks 1st for underemployment, meaning it’s the worst.
Gulfport performs better in this metric, and Brownsville has a very low underemployment rate.
Now, regarding Brownsville—being in the South Texas area, there’s a lot of agriculture and farming, so underemployment may not be as significant an issue there. People are likely employed in agricultural jobs that fit their immediate skills, even if they’re not highly specialized roles.
So, to recap, Detroit is the most concerning city with high unemployment and underemployment rates, while Brownsville and Gulfport show mixed results depending on the metric.
Jacobsen: Gulfport ranks 171st, and Brownsville ranks 181st. So, they’re not as bad in terms of underemployment as they are for unemployment in those areas. Now, let’s see what else we can look at here. When you’re looking at the highs and lows of neediness in the United States, are the gaps significant across the spectrum, or is there simply a rank order,, and the gaps are relatively close overall?
Lupo: The gaps are pretty sizable. Let’s look, for example, at the the child poverty rate. Cleveland, Ohio, has the highest child poverty rate, while Pearl City, Hawaii, has the lowest. That’s a 13-times difference. So, a child in Cleveland is 13 times worse off than one in Pearl City, Hawaii.
For adult poverty rate, Detroit has the highest rate, which is 6 times worse than in Pearl City, Hawaii.
When it comes to homelessness, the difference is even more dramatic. There’s a 30-times difference between Honolulu, Hawaii, which has the highest homelessness rate, and Overland Park, Kansas, which has the lowest.
Depending on the metric, we’re seeing some significant gaps between the cities performing the worst and those performing the best. This highlights the discrepancies in economic well-being, health, and safety across the country and raises the question of how we bridge those gaps.
Jacobsen: Some of your research focuses on actionable. If people want to reduce the neediness in their city, what policies or social programs seem reasonable to implement based on the data?
Lupo: It begins at the local level. Residents need to petition their local leaders or legislatures to revamp existing policies. If those leaders aren’t addressing the issues, residents need to vote them out and bring in new leadership to prioritize these challenges.
I don’t know if you’ve been following the situation in Chicago, but there’s been significant tension between citizens and city officials over illegal immigration. The city wants to raise taxes to fund services for an influx of immigrants, but residents have had enough. They’re confronting the mayor and assembly members, saying, “You need to look out for us first and not raise taxes to support people who are here illegally.”
We’re starting to see more backlash in impoverished, high-crime communities. Residents are stepping up, making their voices heard, and demanding action. Change has to start at the grassroots level—you can’t petition Washington for solutions until you’ve addressed issues at city hall. Any meaningful improvements in these communities must begin locally and work their way up.
Jacobsen: I have time for one more question. What should we ask here? Are there differences—these are annual studies—but are there seasons in which Americans overall are more needy than others, like the winter or summer?
Lupo: Well, based on the data, this time of year—the holiday season—tends to highlight neediness the most. It’s a season of giving and charity, which brings these issues to the forefront even more.
But in a place like Detroit, for example, where winters can be brutally cold, there’s a significant degree of homelessness, and the need for shelter, warmth, and clothing becomes far more urgent.
Similarly, during the peak of summer, during heat waves, people need air conditioning, access to hydration, and cooling centers to survive. So, yes, I would say that winter and summer—the two peak seasons—are when neediness seems to be the greatest.
Jacobsen: Well, Chip, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it, as always.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/11
Denise L. Berkhalter, APR, is the National Director of Communications for the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). A Mississippi native, she brings nearly three decades of experience in mass communication, including roles as a digital news editor, newspaper editor, reporter, freelance writer, graphic designer, and public relations professional. Berkhalter discusses how young innovators contribute to global change through programs like the World Series of Innovation (WSI). Berkhalter highlights the creativity and curiosity of youth, fostering entrepreneurial skills, global responsibility, and problem-solving through challenges linked to UN SDGs. The program promotes inclusivity with multilingual resources and real-world context evaluation. Supported by sponsors like Citi and MetLife Foundations, WSI provides mentorship and free participation, encouraging solutions for issues like education and clean water. Participants learn practical skills, design thinking, and teamwork, often impacting their communities post-competition and continuing as changemakers globally.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you see young innovators contributing to long-term global changes, like those of the SDGs from the UN?
Denise Berkhalter: Young people bring fresh ideas and energy to solving big challenges like poverty, inequality, and climate change. Programs like the World Series of Innovation help them focus on these global problems by giving them tools and a structure to think creatively. For example, in WSI, students are encouraged to come up with solutions that align with the SDGs. After the competition, many participants said they understood the SDGs better and felt more confident they could make a difference.
Jacobsen: What qualities do WSI Imagination League youth bring to the competition?
Berkhalter: Even at a young age, children aged 5 to 12 have incredible imagination and curiosity, which makes them perfect for innovation challenges like WSI. They approach problems with fresh, creative ideas because they aren’t afraid to think outside the box. At this age, kids are naturally curious and good at asking “why” and “what if,” which helps them explore solutions that adults might not think of. Participating in WSI also allows us to set the stage for entrepreneurial thinking early on. Through the competition, these young participants begin to understand how to solve problems creatively, work collaboratively, and present their ideas confidently—skills that will serve them for life.
Jacobsen: How does competition foster not only entrepreneurial skills and global responsibility?
Berkhalter: The competition teaches young people how to turn ideas into action, just like real entrepreneurs. They learn how to research problems, develop solutions, and pitch their ideas to judges. But it’s not just about business – the competition also connects their ideas to real-world issues, like hunger or clean energy, so they think about how their work can help others. For example, one challenge asked students to create ideas to bring quality education to more kids, encouraging them to think about the bigger picture.
Jacobsen: How does the availability of multiple languages enhance inclusivity?
Berkhalter: As of 2024, the WSI program is available to participants, educators, and others in five languages. This ensures accessibility for diverse participants, fosters inclusivity, and enables a broader demographic of young innovators to contribute.
Jacobsen: What kind of impact have previous winners had on their communities?
Berkhalter: Winners often implement their innovations to create tangible community impacts which has led to meaningful discussions and solutions tailored to local needs, demonstrating the potential of youth-led initiatives.
Jacobsen: How do global sponsors like Citi Foundation and MetLife Foundation help?
Berkhalter: Global Sponsors play a crucial role in the competition by funding challenges, providing strategic guidance, and creating opportunities for students to participate at no cost. Their support not only focuses the challenges on real-world problems but also strengthens the program by ensuring access to resources, mentorship, and opportunities. This enables the competition to expand its reach, enhance sustainability, and benefit more global young innovators.
Jacobsen: How do you balance fostering creativity and innovation with practicality?
Berkhalter: The program uses tools like the Lean Canvas model, which helps students focus on key questions like “Who is my solution for?” and “How will it work?” This keeps their ideas creative but also ensures they can actually make them happen. It’s about teaching students to dream big but stay grounded in what’s possible.
Jacobsen: What challenges have you encountered in fairly addressing innovations from different cultures?
Berkhalter: It can be tricky because what seems like a great idea in one country might not work in another. Judges have to think about each idea within the context of the student’s culture and community. For example, a solution for clean water in a rural village might look very different from a solution in a big city. The program works to make sure every idea is judged fairly by considering these differences. To support this, we have developed a rubric that emphasizes innovation, with creativity as its foundation. Volunteers receive comprehensive guidance to ensure they understand that students are developing their ideas based on diverse lived experiences. This ensures evaluations remain sensitive to the unique contexts and challenges students are addressing.
Jacobsen: Can you share any insights into how competition helps participants evolve beyond the event?
Berkhalter: The competition is more than just one moment. Students learn skills they can use in the future, like problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. They also build confidence in their ability to create change. Many students go on to start businesses, join other programs, or get more involved in solving problems in their communities.
Jacobsen: What is the role of design thinking plays in shaping solutions for global challenges?
Berkhalter: Design thinking is central to WSI’s approach, guiding students through ideation, prototyping, and testing solutions. This iterative process ensures that their ideas are user-centered and address real-world needs effectively.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Denise.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/10
Anastasiia Romashko, assistant producer and social media manager at Kontakt Ukrainian Television Network, discussed the challenges and dynamics of the Ukrainian-Canadian media landscape. She highlighted difficulties refugees face, including language barriers for older generations and educational adjustments for younger ones. Cultural integration remains complex, with Ukrainian-Canadian media largely isolated from mainstream outlets, except for limited collaboration with Omni TV. War-related stories dominate interests, often interwoven with personal hardships. Romashko noted differences in coverage, emphasizing Ukrainian media’s sharper, more direct approach compared to Canada’s broader, less detailed perspective. Despite challenges, cultural maintenance and storytelling are vital for the Ukrainian diaspora.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your role in the Ukrainian-Canadian media landscape?
Anastasiia Romashko: I am an assistant producer and social media manager at Kontakt Ukrainian Television Network.
Jacobsen: What does being an assistant producer for media involve?
Romashko: Usually, I contact different people. If we are looking for individuals for our materials, they could be Ukrainian personalities or Canadians connected to Ukraine or doing something for Ukraine. It varies. We usually arrange interviews with them or organize some reports that we can film for our content network.
Romashko: What are the most difficult stories to report on? And what are the easiest?
Jacobsen: The easiest stories are definitely about hobbies. It is easier if they are not doing something directly related to Ukraine or are in Ukraine—such as people who play the violin, ballet dancers, or perform similar activities.
However, every story carries some level of pain or disappointment from the individual’s perspective, as most fled the Ukraine war. Even if we conduct mostly lighthearted interviews or report on something enjoyable, they often share a story about the war or how they fled Ukraine.
Most of them were very successful in Ukraine before they moved to Canada. Now, they have lost everything and are no longer doing what they were doing in Ukraine or Europe. That is hard to hear. Some of them begin to cry, and we often don’t know how to respond because we cannot fully understand their feelings.
Jacobsen: When someone starts crying during an interview, do you interrupt their emotion or give them space to express it for tone?
Romashko: Based on our experience with such emotional situations, we usually… I’m not the interviewer. I don’t conduct the interviews myself. I assist with the production or post-production.
Typically, we give them the space to express their emotions because it would feel odd to say something like, “It’s fine, don’t worry, don’t cry.” That’s understandable, so we allow them to express themselves and their feelings.
From an interview perspective, it’s important because it helps the interviewer connect with the person on an emotional level. Of course, there is a reason for their feelings, so you can’t stop them. You have to let them process and express themselves.
Jacobsen: Regarding the Ukrainian diaspora, with the large numbers of Canadians who have Ukrainian heritage, what is the number?
Romashko: It’s almost like 200,000, close to 300,000.
Jacobsen: So, a huge number of Canadians are Ukrainian. What topics interest them? In other words, what subject matter is pertinent to their concerns as Canadians and those with Ukrainian heritage?
Romashko: The main issue that interests people is the war, which is still ongoing. Secondly, there’s the topic of people recently arriving from Ukraine to Canada.
They face challenges not necessarily with communication but integrating into a society completely different from what they were used to in Ukraine. This includes differences in behaviour, societal norms, and general adjustment.
Jacobsen: What about things like English as a second language? Is that a barrier to integration for refugees or asylum seekers?
Romashko: It’s mostly a barrier for older people. They usually had less exposure to English than younger generations. For those aged 20 to 40, we had more English instruction in schools or opportunities to travel to Europe. Still, for older people, those aged 50 or above, or for someone’s grandparents, it takes much work to learn a new language.
That’s a big problem, and many older people feel uncomfortable here because they cannot connect or communicate with others as they could before. For example, a colleague shared a story about her parents, who moved back to Poland. They had tried living with her but found communicating too difficult. They felt so alone and isolated because she was the only person they could talk to. They didn’t have friends or relatives to interact with, which made them feel lost. Ultimately, they decided to go back.
It’s much easier for younger people. Even if they don’t know English initially, it’s easier for them to learn because English speakers surround them. There’s no way they won’t pick it up eventually.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges for young people? What are the challenges for older people when they first arrive in Canada in an ongoing war outside of language?
Romashko: The main challenge for younger people is education. For instance, if they are still in school or university, they must adjust their studies when they arrive. They need to find their place in a new academic environment, which can be overwhelming.
Another challenge is making friends. When you move from your home country, you leave behind your friends, school, and teachers, which makes life comfortable and familiar. Here, they have to start over, building relationships in a place where they initially know no one except their parents. That is challenging.
The main challenge for older people is finding work. It can be difficult due to language barriers, differences in work experience, or even a lack of career opportunities, making integration much harder for them.
That’s the main one.
Jacobsen: How integrated is the Ukrainian media landscape, specifically the Ukrainian-Canadian media landscape, into the mainstream Canadian media? How is the integration there? Is there an exchange of information, stories, and expertise? Or are you more isolated as Ukrainian-Canadians?
Romashko: We’re generally more separated from Canadian television and media centers. The only connection we’ve established is with Omni TV, which is part of the Rogers Media Group. Omni TV is technically an international channel where various nationalities can broadcast their reports or other content.
That’s the only platform where we have some presence. Occasionally, there are conferences like this one, where we meet people from other Canadian media organizations. However, there needs to be a stronger connection with mainstream Canadian media overall.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts about this war, the media, or cultural maintenance?
Romashko: The media, the war, as well as the media in Canada specifically, are quite different here. Even though I’ve learned a lot about the war in Ukraine and attended various conferences about it, Canadian media approaches it differently than Ukrainian media.
Ukrainian media tends to be sharper and more direct in covering what’s happening in Ukraine. Here in Canada, the coverage is more of an overview, focusing on cultural and political events rather than directly highlighting the war actions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: June 3, 2025 Accepted: June 3, 2025 Published: June 8, 2025
Abstract
This interview presents a focused conversation with Dr. Veronica Palladino, a physician, poet, and member of numerous high-range IQ societies. Intended as a public clarification following past interviews and inquiries, this dialogue covers Palladino’s affiliations with global high-IQ communities, her philosophical interests, her published and forthcoming literary works, and her professional development within medicine. Palladino shares insights into her intellectual trajectory, ranging from Husserlian phenomenology to emergency medicine, as well as her commitment to raising awareness about mental health through poetry. The interview captures her multidimensional identity as a clinician, thinker, and writer committed to both internal and societal healing.
Keywords: Clinical Pathology and Biochemistry, Contemporary Italian Poetry, Edmund Husserl Phenomenology, Emergency Medicine and Healthcare, High-Range IQ Societies, Human Fragility in Literature, Mental Health Awareness through Art, Poetry and Depression, Transfusional Medicine Studies, Veronica Palladino Interview
Introduction
Dr. Veronica Palladino is a multifaceted thinker whose work spans clinical medicine, poetry, and philosophical inquiry. A medical doctor with specializations in clinical pathology and emergency medicine, Palladino has also become widely recognized in the high-range IQ community for her involvement in numerous societies across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. In response to frequent public inquiries and correspondence, this interview offers a comprehensive clarification of her affiliations, intellectual focus, and literary production. Her most recent poetic works explore themes of psychological vulnerability, existential reflection, and the healing possibilities of language. With a foundation in both empirical science and phenomenological philosophy, Palladino’s voice exemplifies a rare synthesis of rigorous logic and emotional depth.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Veronica Palladino, M.D.
Section 1: Clarifying High-Range IQ Society Membership and Purpose
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Since the high-range testing and high-I.Q. society series is finished, I am taking this as a one-off based on a request from you. You needed some public clarification based on prior interviews. Some emails have been sent to you. Some confusion in the public about you. So, let’s make this straightforward: What is your involvement in the various high‑range IQ societies? Which ones have you been in? Which ones are you in? What do you think is the future of these groups?
Veronica Palladino, M.D.: Thank you very much for this opportunity, a conclusion after previous interviews of April, July, August 2022, and foreword of 2024. I receive numerous emails and Facebook’s messages in reference to my participation in the high range iq societies. I want to clarify that the high range iq societies are a gym for thought, for logic, for reasoning ability. The discussions about score and classification of intelligent quotient are just a way of simplifying an extremely complex topic. Iq is a measure like any other. The important element is to know, to expand one’s capabilities.
I am member of different high range iq societies: Epiq as honorary member, TOPS OATHS, Atlantiq iq society, TGMIN, Dark Pavilion, China High Iq Network Genio Grupo, GLIA, League of Perfect Scorers, Leviathan, Misty Pavilion, Space- TIME society, Supernova, Venus, Catholiq, Immortal Society, China Town Brainpower Club, Mensa, Myriad Society, Prudentia, Quasar Quorum high iq society, Real iq society, Synaptiq society, Ultima iq society, Hidden position society, SECRET society, Elysian Trust (Volant society), Vertex, EPIMETHEUS, Syncritiq Institute, World Genius Directory, Triple Nine Society, Grand iq society, Intruellect iq society, Milenija, True iq society, Universal Genius society, Poetic Genius Society, The Literarians, Real iq society, HRTR (High Range Testees, Registry), ISPE (ex member), Sidis society (prospective member), Hall of Sophia.
I am winner of WGR world genius registry 2022 Competition, one of the winners of Road to Damascus Competition 2021.
I am Director of Healthcare of Bethany institute created by the President of Catholiq, Domagoj Kutle a real genial person.
My name is recorded on the Global Genius Registry, WGD list, World Famous Iq scores, Iq Ranking List, Top iq scores, World Genius Registry.
Section 2: Literary Contributions and Poetic Themes
Jacobsen: What books have you authored? You have a book incoming on poetry. What is its theme? Can you share a few samples? What inspired this work?
Palladino: I am author of:
Il diario del Martedì 2008 (fiction book)
Un mondo altro 2009 (fiction book)
Persone e lacrime 2018 (poetry)
La morte delle Afroditi bionde 2019 (fiction book)
Esher’s book 2023 (poetry)
Regina cattiva 2024 (poetry)
Fobie nella sera dell’essenza 2024 (poetry)
My new book on poetry will focus on human fragility, suicide, depression, malaise, obsessions that are not topics to be afraid of but pathologies from which with love and care one can recover. A wise introduction will be written by you, Scott Jacobsen a perfect Professor of human soul.
Section 3: Future Projects and Academic Development
Jacobsen: What are future projects for you? Do these build on previous research or creative endeavours?
Palladino: After degree in Medicine (degree’s prize for result and length of studies in 2016) and specialization in Clinical Pathology and Biochemistry and a Diploma in General Medicine, I completed a Master’s degree in Emergency Medicine and I started another one in healthcare management (not yet finished).
Section 4: Current Areas of Study and Philosophical Foundations
Jacobsen: What is your current subject of study (and related fields)? What research questions are you answering? Why pick these areas of study in the first place?
Palladino: My interests are Transfusional Medicine and Health’s economy.
My passion is philosophy. I have read Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology a philosophical approach that focuses on subjective experience and the structure of consciousness.
Husserl argues that transcendental phenomenology can provide a secure foundation for knowing and understanding reality.
Phenomenological reduction: the process of suspending judgment and bracketing presuppositions to access pure experience.
Intentional consciousness: consciousness is always directed toward something, whether an external object or an internal thought.
Transcendental ego: the experiencing subject that constitutes the world.
Noema: the object of consciousness, which can be an external object or an abstract concept.
I study Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jean-Paul Sartre.
Section 5: Personal Priorities and Motivations
Jacobsen: How would you describe your life today? What priorities occupy you?
Palladino: My priority, at the moment, is cultural and professional growth. I would like to improve and overcome limits and with my poems, I would like to shout out loud for those who cannot do so.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the notes of clarification for everyone, Veronica.
Discussion
Dr. Veronica Palladino bridges the worlds of medicine, poetry, and high-range intellectual communities with clarity and intention. Her participation in numerous IQ societies reflects a belief in cognitive development as a means of self-betterment rather than status. In both her medical practice and literary work, she addresses themes of human vulnerability—especially mental health, grief, and resilience—with empathy and philosophical depth. Rooted in phenomenology and committed to service, Palladino’s multidisciplinary pursuits form a coherent vision: to understand and elevate the human experience through thought, care, and expression.
Methods
The interview was conducted via correspondence. 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 Veronica Palladino, M.D. for her 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, 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 Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine. June 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, June 8). Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (June 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Veronica Palladino on High-Range IQ Societies, Mental Health Poetry, and Phenomenology in Medicine [Internet]. 2025 Jun;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/palladino-clarifications
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: May 21, 2025 Accepted: May 21, 2025 Published: June 8, 2025
Abstract
This article presents an in-depth conversation with Detroit entrepreneur Britney Hoskins, founder of The Top Pic Collective, Deluxe Event Rentals, and Moranis Event Venue. Launching her first business at 16, Hoskins has become a recognized leader in luxury event planning with a mission to make weddings accessible. Her flagship initiative, Mini Mony Day, offers $100 weddings, blending style with inclusivity. This interview explores her business philosophy, the cultural shift in wedding traditions, the Tulum 2026 destination retreat, and her commitment to mentorship, legacy-building, and community empowerment.
Keywords: Black Entrepreneurship, Destination Weddings, Event Planning Innovation, Inclusive Luxury Weddings, Legacy-Building for Black Families, Micro Weddings Trend, Mini Mony Day, Mentorship for Young Women, Michigan Event Industry, Tulum Couples Retreat
Introduction
Detroit-based entrepreneur Britney Hoskins is reshaping the wedding industry by offering affordable luxury through initiatives like Mini Mony Day. As the founder of multiple successful event-related companies, Hoskins emphasizes community, culture, and creativity. Her approach challenges traditional pricing models while promoting elegance, accessibility, and inclusivity. This interview offers insight into her journey from teen entrepreneur to industry innovator.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Britney Hoskins
Section 1: Mini Mony Day
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Britney Hoskins, a Detroit-based entrepreneur and the creative force behind several successful event brands: The Top Pic Collective, Deluxe Event Rentals, and Moranis Event Venue. She started her first business at 16 and has since become a leader in inclusive luxury event experiences.
Her signature initiative, Mini Mony Day, offers $100 weddings that combine elegance and accessibility. The program is set to expand internationally with a destination edition in Tulum, Mexico, planned for February 2026. A passionate advocate for mentorship and community empowerment, Britney also operates Michigan’s largest Black woman-owned event rental company and runs two Moranis venues in the state. Thank you very much for joining me today. What inspired you to create Mini Mony Day?
Britney Hoskins:Mini Mony Day is one of my favourite events to produce. It began as a class and a styled shoot. As experienced planners in this industry, we often host educational courses.
But typically, after the class ends, we take a few photos and break everything down—hoping someone writes about it or that the attendees find something meaningful. To me, that felt like such a waste. So I thought, What if we let real couples actually get married on the same set we’re using to teach people? Why not make it real?
So we put the idea out there—”You can get married for $100 on the set I just used to teach a class.” And it was an instant hit. The stories started coming in—people who dreamed of a beautiful wedding but couldn’t afford the traditional costs. That kind of feedback became the norm. It pulled at my heartstrings because I love love. I’m a hopeless romantic. So, I wanted to continue the tradition, which has since become an annual event.
Section 2: Early Start
Jacobsen: How did your early start with the ice cream truck business at 16 influence your approach to entrepreneurship today? I’m sure many Americans and Canadians remember the thrill of chasing ice cream trucks, Eddie Murphy-style—yelling, “Ice cream! Ice cream! Mister Ice Cream Man!”
Hoskins: [Laughing] I could give you a long philosophical answer about how it made me who I am today, but truthfully—I was 16 and had a child. I needed to make things work. That urgency taught me hustle, resilience, and the importance of showing up daily.
I made more money in a day than I would have in an entire paycheck at Subway—and I never wanted to return. So from there, it was always about figuring out how to build the best version of my businesses—whatever they would be—so I could continue to be my boss.
Getting exposed to that at 16 sparked my love for entrepreneurship. That’s what it did for me.
Jacobsen: What makes the Tulum edition of Mini Mony Day different from other mission-based events?
Hoskins: Besides the obvious—that it’s in a completely different setting and it’s tropical and amazing—I think Tulum is such a spiritual and holistic place. It’s a beautiful destination to begin someone’s love story.
It’s also a couple’s retreat. So it’s really a mashup—it’s not just Mini Mony Day. It’s both a couple’s retreat and a Mini Mony Day wedding experience.
Being in a place that’s centred on holistic wellness and spirituality makes it the perfect backdrop for something like this.
Section 3: Luxury and Accessibility
Jacobsen: How do you balance luxury and accessibility in the wedding experience? I know part of your—maybe not just business philosophy, but your broader work philosophy—involves inclusivity.
Hoskins: Absolutely. I feel like a lot of small businesses—especially in the events world, where most companies are small—don’t always take all the steps or do the research needed to explore how we can better support and collaborate in order to give clients the best experience.
So, we spend a significant amount of time making sure we’re always positioned to offer clients a high-level experience at an attainable price. It won’t be feasible for most or all, but in the context of luxury event planning, I’dwe’re very affordable.
For example, if you were planning a regular birthday party for your child, $2,500 might seem absurd. However, for someone already planning a luxury-level celebration, $2,500 would be considered budget-friendly—especially when they start getting quotes from other small business owners.
As luxury event planners, we work hard to ensure that we can offer more accessible upscale experiences.
Jacobsen: Can you tell me more about the $3,500 destination package? What can couples expect from that experience? And even considering the last three and a half or four years, given the COVID-19 pandemic, were destination packages still in demand?
Hoskins: No, not really. I haven’t done a lot with destination packages historically.
No one was travelling when COVID hit, so destination weddings and events took a significant hit—that was pretty universal. But now, as things have picked back up, we’re seeing renewed interest in travel-based events—and that’s why expanding Mini Mony Day to a destination like Tulum feels like the right next step.
But I also believe that what happened during COVID—and shortly after—is that, since people could not gather, micro weddings became much more popular. Weddings with 50 or fewer guests weren’t really a big trend before the pandemic, but after COVID, they became a lot more common. Most destination weddings have under 100 guests, so I think destination weddings have probably seen an uptick because of that shift in mindset.
Section 4: Serial Entrepreneurship
Jacobsen: Do you operate these businesses—The Top Pic Collective, Deluxe Event Rentals, and Moranis Event Venue—as separate, standalone companies, or are they independent but integrated services?
Hoskins: Yes. They are businesses that are in their own right and operate independently. But they’re also offered together as a package to make things easier and more seamless for clients. So, both are independent, but they can work in tandem as well.
Jacobsen: What challenges have you faced working in the events and hospitality industry? I’ve worked in hospitality myself—it’s not exactly glamorous, but I think it’s a valuable experience for anyone to have, especially early in life. It gives you a perspective—between home and the wider world.
Hoskins: Definitely. Hospitality is all about service. When you work in hospitality, you learn to care about people’s needs. You develop patience—because it can be one of the most stressful fields—but you also learn to be present and attentive. It shapes how you deal with people in any line of work.
Jacobsen: How do you envision Mini Mony Day evolving beyond Tulum?
Hoskins: Every time we’ve done Mini Mony Day, it’s gone viral. We get national interest. So, people reach out about bringing Mini Mony Day to their cities. It became a travelling experience that reached several major cities across the country.
Jacobsen: Do you do any mentorship work with young women? And what advice would you offer to young women who want to start their businesses—maybe with an ice cream truck, perhaps something else? What should they keep in mind when it comes to the inevitable challenges that come with entrepreneurship?
Hoskins: Yes, absolutely—we do mentorship. Mini Mony Day is centred around mentorship. I’d say it’s the very foundation of the program. As far as advice to young business owners goes, obstacles are guaranteed. That’s the one certainty in entrepreneurship: you will face challenges. But if it’s something you really, really want, you’ll figure out how to work through them. You push through. If you stop every time something gets hard, you’ll never move forward in business.
Section 5: Inspirations
Jacobsen: Who—or what—inspires you?
Hoskins: My family. Without question. I’m huge on legacy-building. I think the Black wealth gap is absurd—it’s truly unacceptable. Entire generations can work their whole lives and leave nothing behind. That cycle needs to change. So, for me, building something lasting for my family is what drives everything I do.
Nothing is there to help the next generation get a leg up. So, it has become my life’s mission to ensure a legacy is left behind for my kids—and, hopefully, for my kids’ kids. That’s an everyday mantra for me.
It is not some vague, overarching goal like, “Oh, I hope I can leave my kids a nice life insurance policy.” It is truly something I think about daily: Is this something I can leave to my family?Does this decision move me closer to that long-term goal? That kind of legacy-building is a significant motivator for me.
Jacobsen: Do you think the nature of weddings in America has changed over the past couple of decades in terms of how people perceive them and how they’re conducted?
Hoskins: Absolutely. We’re seeing a more pessimistic generation emerging. Millennials, and especially the generation coming up behind us, have seen so much instability—economic, social, and even existential. And I think that’s affected how people view marriage.
There’s this growing belief that marriage is just a societal construct—like, it’s not really that important, so who cares? That kind of attitude is more common now. On the other hand, you also have the Instagram wedding phenomenon, where the entire event becomes a photo opportunity. It’s about the aesthetic, the post, the share.
At the same time, you still have people deeply rooted in marriage traditions, for whom the meaning goes beyond visuals or content. So yes, the face of weddings has definitely changed—it’s more varied, more performative in some ways, and also more fragmented than before.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of that old Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson bit—“Can you smell what The Rock is cooking?” It’s like even weddings are now performative moments for the ‘audience’—everyone wants to recreate the celebrity wedding vibe on Instagram.
Hoskins: Exactly.
Section 6: The Michigan 50
Jacobsen: How has receiving the Michigan 50 Companies to Watch award impacted your business—whether in terms of growth or brand recognition?
Hoskins: That’s still new for us, so we’re working through it. But honestly, we underestimated how many people would see it and how big a deal it is.
Like, literally today—I went to the flower shop, and they said, “Hey Brit, we heard you won an award!” And we were like, “Wait, how did you hear about that?” So I think we didn’t realize its reach at first.
But yes—it adds a layer of validity to our brand. It is one of those things that acts like a stamp of approval. It confirms that we’re headed in the right direction—and that’s a great feeling.
Jacobsen: How do you select venues or partners when you want to deliver low-cost wedding experiences with a high impact?
Hoskins: I’ll be honest—the answer I’m going to give is one that not everyone will like. I genuinely try to control as much of the process as possible. Our clients come to us looking for a venue; they come to us for the décor. They come to us for the rentals. And because we own the experience, we can tailor the budgeting. We can tailor the experience. In a way, we’ve created a little mini-event monopoly—but only because we’ve been disappointed by other vendors so many times.
A perfect example: Yesterday, we hosted a major event at our venue—a customer appreciation day. It was fantastic. I wanted a dance floor installed, so I contacted three or four vendors to arrange it.
They didn’t return calls or reply to text messages. One vendor answered and said they’d call back, but they never did, so I just bought one myself.
Now, our clients can access a dance floor—and we control that part of the experience. That’s how many of the services we offer have come about. We try to support other vendors first, but when we see a gap—especially one that makes the process stressful or exhausting—we step in to fill it. We want to make the experience smooth and enjoyable from start to finish.
Jacobsen: What do you hope attendees will take away from the Tulum experience—beyond the ceremony itself?
Hoskins: I hope the ceremony is just a small part of the experience. I want the entire experience to be life-changing. I’ve planned an action-packed retreat filled with workshops and activities designed to bring couples closer together.
We’ve got yacht excursions, team scavenger hunts, and more. We’ve even bought out an entire boutique hotel, where we’ll host private events throughout the retreat. I hope attendees walk away feeling like they had an attainable luxury, high-end experience—and they leave feeling stronger as a couple.
Section 7: Wedding Quotes
Jacobsen: Do you have a favourite quote about weddings?
Hoskins: I don’t know if I have a specific quote, but one thing I always tell my brides is that their wedding day is just one day of what they hope will be a million more.
It sounds funny, coming from someone who works at weddings, but I tell them not to take the day too seriously. Some brides become so stressed that they want it to be over. And I’m like, “That’s not how you should remember your wedding day. It should be exciting and joyful.”
So remember: today is one day of what you pray will be a lifetime. Do not let the pressure steal your joy.
Jacobsen: Well, Britney, I’m out of questions—Thank you very much for your time today.
Hoskins: Thank you for your time as well. It was lovely to meet you. I look forward to reading what you write. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to reach out.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care. Bye.
Hoskins: Thank you. Bye.
Discussion
Britney Hoskins exemplifies the power of entrepreneurial vision rooted in community, resilience, and intentional legacy-building. Through Mini Mony Day and her broader business ecosystem—including The Top Pic Collective, Deluxe Event Rentals, and Moranis Event Venue—Hoskins redefines what luxury can mean in the context of weddings and event planning. Her approach dismantles the traditional cost barriers associated with high-end celebrations, offering an inclusive alternative that blends affordability with elegance. The interview reveals a consistent theme of control—not for the sake of exclusivity, but to ensure quality, reliability, and a stress-free experience for clients. By vertically integrating her services, Hoskins closes logistical gaps that often disrupt the event experience. Her candid remarks about vendors failing to deliver highlight a broader issue within the events industry, especially for small and minority-owned businesses seeking consistency and excellence.
The expansion of Mini Mony Day to Tulum marks a significant evolution in her work: merging destination wedding culture with retreat-style intimacy. This transformation reflects a broader cultural shift toward meaning-making experiences over traditional ceremonies. As Hoskins notes, modern weddings have become increasingly performative—driven by social media and aesthetics—yet there remains a yearning for deeper connection. Her Tulum edition addresses both: it satisfies the visual expectations of contemporary couples while offering workshops and communal activities designed to reinforce the emotional bond. Hoskins’s commitment to mentorship, particularly for young women of color, signals that her impact extends far beyond individual events. She sees entrepreneurship not merely as a means of personal advancement but as a vehicle for intergenerational change. Her focus on closing the Black wealth gap by building sustainable, transferable businesses reveals a strategic approach to economic empowerment rooted in family and community.
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 Britney Hoskins for her 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 Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition) Jacobsen S. Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events. June 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition) Jacobsen, S. (2025, June 8). Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT) JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition) Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (June 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins.
Harvard Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins.
Harvard (Australian) Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins.
Vancouver/ICMJE Jacobsen S. Conversation with Britney Hoskins on Inclusive Luxury Weddings & Building Legacy Through Events [Internet]. 2025 Jun;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hoskins
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.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/13
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA) a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of the young people into decision making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we are here with the wonderful Tauya Chinama. We have been discussing the Zimbabwean context extensively, focusing on humanists, non-believers, and those who take a more critical-thinking approach to what are often seen as unquestioned beliefs in public life. You continually evolve your perspective, even to the point of embracing apatheism at this stage. Today, I wanted to talk about combating phobias against non-believers and humanists. It is an interesting topic.
I see this issue everywhere. It doesn’t matter which region of the world or the people I’m speaking to—it only differs in the flavour, tone, and style of the fear or phobias that people hold. So, in a Zimbabwean context, what have you observed? What do you notice on both a personal level and in public life?
Tauya Chinama: Well, thank you very much for this opportunity. Let’s start by defining a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred of something. In this case, it’s an irrational fear or hatred of non-religious people or humanists. As I mentioned, the fear is irrational. There is no reasoning behind these attitudes, and Zimbabwe became what it is today regarding religion largely due to colonization. The majority of the population about 85% are Christians, but they didn’t become Christians by choice. They became Christians through colonization. When the missionaries came to Zimbabwe, they demonized local culture, branding it as barbaric, backward, and unworthy of preservation. Many people accepted this, and although some resisted, they faced punishment, including being labelled as rebellious. Concepts like Satan and the devil were introduced to Zimbabwe, with people being told that they were doing ancestral worship which the missionaries associated with the evil. So, today in Zimbabwe, before revealing that you are non-religious or a humanist, you need to consider your audience because they might quickly label you as evil or devil worshiper.
Being labelled can have political, economic, and social consequences. Socially, you may start to be excluded, and some people will choose to disassociate with you. Politically, if you are an active politician, you could lose support simply because you are openly non-religious.
Economically, you could lose your job or miss out on economic opportunities. So, the phobia against Humanists and non religious people manifests in different forms. Some people may genuinely fear you due to irrational beliefs forced into them.
Jacobsen: From a sympathetic or empathetic point of view, in conversations with individuals who hold various supernatural beliefs, extra-material philosophies, or some form of magical worldview, how do these beliefs help them in their local context? How do they fortify themselves against the hardships, difficulties, and challenges, particularly within the Zimbabwean cultural context?
Chinama: Yes, of course it is a fact that religion helps people to cope with certain problems or sometimes allows them to evade responsibility by assuming someone higher than human beings takes care of everything beyond human control, but from my experience, when I speak to religious people, especially those with whom I have a close personal relationship, some will say, “Yes, you’re making sense.” However, they have a fear of reasoning. This is another phobia. They are afraid to reason against a well-established religion because they feel it sounds like blasphemy. That fear leads them to suspect that they are committing blasphemy. So, sometimes, they choose not to reason. I usually give them an example when they accuse me of being a devil worshipper or something similar. I say, “Listen, who created the devil?” They will say, “God.” Then I say, “Well, didn’t He know that the devil would go against Him later on?” They reply, “Yes.” So I say, “The same devil you accuse me of worshipping was created by the God you worship. Aren’t you also aligned with the devil by that logic?” At that point, they start to see the reasoning. Some people, especially younger ones, can try to understand this perspective. However, those who are older, over forty, are much more difficult to convince.
Those below forty, you can have a conversation with them, and they are often more open to listening and understanding. A few days ago, I met a young lady at a salon. She seemed religious but somewhat skeptical. As we talked, I explained how certain scriptures, especially in Leviticus, can be oppressive. She eventually agreed and said that the book of Leviticus should be removed from the Bible.
She said, “Yes, you make sense.” I exchanged contact information with her, but when I tried to follow up later, she didn’t respond. I believe it was due to that phobia, the fear that I might influence her to stray from her beliefs. That’s my experience observing how people relate to non-religious and humanists.
There is often a void left behind when someone leaves religion because it’s extremely scary to be free. The idea that “I am fully responsible for all the problems I face and no one is coming to save me” is terrifying for many.
Jacobsen: I recall, as you know, James Randi, a prominent member of the skeptic community in the United States, once told me in an interview before he passed away that the primary reason behind a lot of religious beliefs is fear. I find that your analysis aligns closely with his.
So, more to the point about phobias toward humanists and the non-religious, like naturalists, what is the experience on the other side—those on the receiving end of this fear you just described? In other words, how does this fear of the religious manifest in the lives of the non-religious, humanists, and others, even those without a particular emotional attachment, such as apatheists like yourself?
Chinama: Yes, the fear that religious people have sometimes challenged the non-religious as well. A good example, though unrelated to Zimbabwe, is a well-known atheist who recently converted to Christianity. I’m referring to Aryan Hirsi Ali, she struggled with the freedom of knowing that nothing external would help her. In an interview with Richard Dawkins she mentioned having a feeling of deep emptiness and thought Christianity would fill that void.
Most of the time, due to the social consequences of being non-religious, people are secluded, left alone, lose economic opportunities, and lose political popularity. It’s a painful experience. It takes much courage to stand firm on humanism. As a non-religious person or a humanist, you may sit down and question yourself: “Am I wrong? Am I right?”
This internal conflict can lead you to become more open-minded or radical. For example, some people are accused of being devil worshippers. Even though they know they aren’t, repeated accusations can push them to embrace the label out of frustration. They might say, “Fine, if you insist, I am,” reinforcing the phobias. In some cases, they might even mockingly say, “Yes, I am a devil worshipper,” just to scare the religious people, playing into the accusations.
I remember telling you about my journey and how I became who I am today. When I was religious, especially while training to become a Catholic priest, I can honestly say I was unthinkingly religious. I joined the seminary to be trained as a Catholic priest, but then I realized I had to pretend a lot and was too honest to continue that path.
Eventually, I became agnostic, and later, I turned into a militant atheist, but I realized that being militant didn’t work for me. Over time, I became more moderate and adopted apatheism. I don’t care whether God exists or not; what I care about is the welfare of human beings.
You laugh when I say I was too honest to be a priest, but that’s true. I tell people that if you sit down with a priest or someone training to be one and if they are honest with you, they’ll tell you that to survive in that environment, you must wear a mask. You cannot be your true self. If you are yourself won’t last long. You’ll either be ejected or you’ll leave voluntarily. I chose to leave on my terms.
I still talk to people who are in the system or have left, and they are honest with me because they know I understand their struggles. At one point, Dr. Leo Igwe of Nigeria and I tried to start the “Excellence Project,” which was meant to help with psychosocial support people who once train to become priests, imams, rabbis, or other religious officials but had become non-religious. Both Dr. Leo Igwe and I share similar backgrounds, we all trained to be catholic priests but eventually left. He understands the struggle of transitioning from religious training to becoming non-religious. We are still in the process of establishing that group. We want to offer psychosocial support to people transitioning from training as religious officials to becoming non-religious. We understand the void they experience and how society will view them. They are normally judged harshly, for example, if you start a project that fails, people will claim, “God is punishing him because he turned his back on God.” They’ll say you failed because you didn’t fulfill your religious commitment. But what they don’t realize is that some of us left because we were too honest to continue as religious officials. To be a religious official, sometimes you have to be dishonest. You find yourself telling people things you don’t believe simply because it will make them feel better. That’s what non-religious people often experience—it depends on how you became non-religious. Still, it isn’t easy to maintain that stance. Sometimes you think, “Maybe I’m wrong.” Other times, you know, “No, I’m right.” For instance, when I’m speaking with Christians, and I don’t want to be judged harshly, I try to open up their perspective by saying, “If you are going to believe in a god, can’t you believe in one beyond the Bible?” I challenge them by pointing out the contradictions in their beliefs. For example, I ask, “How can you believe in a biblical God who doesn’t know which house belongs to a Jew or an Egyptian and needs blood on doorposts to identify them?” Or, “How can a God justify killing the firstborn of every living thing, even mice and flies, just because of a dispute with Pharaoh?”
I try to make them see how irrational some of their beliefs are. I’m glad the Zimbabwean government has introduced “Heritage Studies” and “Family and Religious Studies” in schools, which came from a presidential commission of 1999 popularly known as Nziramasanga Commission, it’s main goal was to reduce the colonial legacy in the education system. These studies encourage people to reconnect with their culture and view the world from that perspective rather than through an imposed religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
You can only truly understand certain concepts when you view them through the prism of your own culture. Later on, people may start to appreciate the value of their heritage. But if they have abandoned their culture and adopted an alien one—such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam—it becomes difficult. That’s why even some non-religious people, when they face challenges, fall back into Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
Jacobsen: What about using humanist principles to counter some of this public fear? Today, we’re focusing primarily on the social aspects, not legal discrimination, police harassment, or anything else. We’re talking about the internal psychological profiles of individuals who do not understand humanists or other non-religious people in any realistic way.
So, when it comes to conversations aimed at countering the internalized beliefs and misconceptions people have about humanists, you and Leo Igwe are uniquely qualified. Being trained as a priest, you understand religious individuals’ internal dialogue and the humanist point of view. As you mentioned in our previous interview, your love of logic was a driving force for you.
How do you use this understanding of psychology on the other side to facilitate dialogue, reduce fear, and help people understand humanists and others more accurately?
Chinama: Yes. That’s interesting, when applying humanistic values such as helping a blind person or assisting someone who is disabled—the response is often religious. For instance, the person might say, “Ah, you are prayerful. May God bless you.”
Jacobsen: And you convey your message in a way that aligns with their language without necessarily believing the literal interpretation of what they are saying. So, you can communicate effectively without agreeing with the religious connotations.
Chinama: I understand that the person is expressing gratitude. Still, they may seriously believe I made the gesture because I am religious. In reality, I did it because I am human. However, explaining, “I did this because I am human, not religious,” would complicate things.
So, we practice humanistic values. Still, our only real opportunity to express ourselves and clarify that our actions are driven by humanism comes during public engagements. For example, recently, I was invited to the University of Zimbabwe in collaboration with the cultural office of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They were discussing religions in the context of injustice.
At that event, I explained to everyone present, “When you hold interfaith dialogues, why do you exclude us, humanists?” I also pointed out that the theme of this year’s Humanists International Conference, held in Singapore, was Secularism and Interfaith Harmony. This means we are also invested in fostering dialogue between different belief systems. We seek harmony among people, regardless of their beliefs. It’s one of our core values to appreciate diversity.
People need to know that we don’t intend to convert or convince everyone to be nonreligious or Humanists but we want respect for everyone regardless of someone’s religious affiliation. I’m pleased to see how our efforts are evolving here in Zimbabwe. However, our limited numbers are a challenge. I am invited by University of Zimbabwe for another conference on Media against phobias in relation to religious liberties. At the conference I mentioned, the organizers asked me, “How many people can you bring, and how many papers do you want to present?” This shows that they are beginning to see value in what we offer.
Sometimes, I’m invited to radio and television stations. In December, I’m scheduled to attend a high-level event in South Africa on Decolonizing Secularism, where I will present the Zimbabwean humanistic perspective.
As an individual, I’m doing my best to engage with the media and represent humanism. This is part of my service to the humanist and non-religious communities. Besides other efforts, such as helping people, we face phobias locally. We don’t have significant resources to donate as humanists in Zimbabwe. If we go to an orphanage and identify ourselves as non-religious, sometimes our help is denied. This is one of the challenges we face.
Chinama: Sometimes, we might have to donate in silence and not mention our religious affiliation or lack thereof. However, we are progressing through media engagement, trying to make people understand our perspectives. I’m confident that, with time—perhaps in 10 or 15 years—we will see the fruits of our efforts today. We keep investing in our image, in our intellect, and the promotion of humanism. We want people to eventually accept and appreciate the value of science, rationality, and logic while minimizing the harm of irrational superstitions or fearing people merely for holding a different view, like being an atheist.
That’s the idea—we shouldn’t judge or fear people for that. That’s how I see it.
Jacobsen: What about communicating these methodologies to other humanists? What things need to be more obvious to them so they can better understand how to communicate? What areas might conflict arise in understanding what the other side thinks of them?
Chinama: When it comes to non-religious people and humanists, it’s like trying to herd cats. You can’t place all the cats in one area and tell them, “Don’t go here, don’t go there.” Humanists and non-religious people are not sheep—you can’t force them to follow the same path. So, disagreements will always be there, and that’s fine. That’s part of being a humanist, part of being scientific.
However, the key point we share as humanists is this: we must teach people that science works and that reason works. We need to promote science. The good thing about science is that it’s open to change and accepts anyone—it’s not dogmatic. When we explain that science works, we’re not necessarily telling religious people that their religion doesn’t work. Religion might work for them in a psychosocial sense, and that’s fine. But we must stay grounded in reality and aim for lasting solutions.
Religious consolations, while comforting, are often temporary. For example, if someone prays for money but doesn’t go to work, they’ll remain stuck in the same cycle. It would be best to work to earn money—that’s the reality. So, what we’re trying to teach is that people should be productive, scientific, and rational; that’s the core of our message.
We were planning to meet as Humanists in Zimbabwe in September, but unfortunately, today is the last day of September 2024, but it didn’t happen. I hope we shall meet before the end of the year to unify our message and reflect on humanism from the perspective of our environment and culture. We must figure out how best to package our message to convince others. How you explain humanism in Canada may not be the same way I explain it in Zimbabwe or how someone in India might explain it.
We have to customize it. We must tailor the message to fit the particular society but retain the core values—being empathetic, scientific, rational, and logical, valueing hard work and productivity, and promoting secularism or secularization. We aim to minimize the negative impact of superstition on public policy and individuals.
Jacobsen: How do you balance the eternal struggle between compassion, conveying critical thinking, and understanding while judgment?
Chinama: I prefer understanding over judgment. Check the Humanists International website under the section for Young Humanists 2023. You’ll see that I’m one of the nominees. The title of my story is “I Prefer Understanding Over Judgment.” I always try to understand why people think the way they do because judging people without knowing the reasons behind their thinking doesn’t feel right.
Earlier, I mentioned that the majority of Zimbabweans became Christians through colonization. So, I understand that much of what people believe today is a colonial hangover—a legacy deeply ingrained in society. I always aim to understand. Sometimes, I clash with fellow humanists and non-religious people who accuse me of being too sympathetic to religious people. Why? Because I believe in giving religious people a chance to share their stories. If we listen to them first, we can better share our perspectives. Judgment without understanding won’t go anywhere.
One of the most interesting experiences I’ve had was when I was on a TV program two years ago, engaging with an SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) pastor. I was surprised when he agreed with me. I told him that Christianity is defined by confusion, and at first, he said, “No, no, no, you’re wrong” I asked him to give me time to explain, and he agreed. I said, “Take an Adventist, a Catholic, and a Wesleyan—put them in the same room and ask them to define God. Will they give the same answer?” He thought about it and replied, “No.” I “said,” “Isn’t it confusion?” He eventually agreed, saying, “You’re right; what defines Christianity is confusion.”
The TV program presenter said, “Pastor, you’re ruining the program by agreeing with this guy!” But the pastor replied, “I have no choice—what he’s saying makes sense.”
I argue that rationality works. Unfortunately, the presenter of that program, who used to talk to me regularly, left Zimbabwe six months ago and is now in the United States. I can connect you with him if you’d like. He’s more level-headed after interacting with people from different faiths, including me. Although he remains somewhat religious and agnostic, he’s more balanced now.
Jacobsen: We have about three minutes left. Any final thoughts based on today’s session, Tauya?
Chinama: Thank you very much. I want to encourage my theistic brothers and sisters, those who are religious. We understand your fears and concerns, which may stem from not engaging with us. Please, let us engage. Let’s reason together. We have no intention of converting you, but we want to see progress for everyone. We believe that science works, and we believe that reason works.
To my fellow non-religious people, I urge you not to shut out religious individuals. They have a story to tell, and we should listen to them. Let’s understand their perspective and reason from their point of view. We can create a diverse society where people respect each other regardless of their religious beliefs. I rest my case. Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time as well.
Chinama: A lovely welcome.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/13
*Transcript edited for readability.*
Kwilltis a platform that empowers individuals to celebrate and preserve their life stories. Through Legacy and Remembrance Patches, users can document milestones, memories and honor loved ones. Kwillt connects generations, ensuring every story is remembered and cherished, creating a lasting digital legacy for future generations. Lee Reams is a co-founder.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Lee Reams to discuss Kwillt, which is primarily focused on moving away from the toxic nature of social media and emphasizing a more positive, authentic approach. I may have just given away the plot, but from your observations, what were some of the original inspirations for creating this?
Lee Reams: I’ll give you a story if that’s all right. It all evolved from a trip to Egypt when the pandemic ended. Egypt was beginning to reopen, and it was a lifelong trip my father had always wanted to take.
He was still healthy enough to go, so we decided to do it. We went there, and it was like visiting Disneyland with no one else around. We had free rein and did the entire Nile cruise, seeing all the important landmarks.
As we explored the tombs and Egypt, what resonated with me was the culture, storytelling, and how the people controlled their narratives. We had just come through the pandemic and cancel culture, where opinions could be judged and attacked. You could express an opinion; someone might think it was wrong and come after you or your company, damaging your reputation. What struck me was how Egypt’s culture centred around storytelling.
When I returned, I started thinking about the experience of walking through someone’s life in chronological order, with images helping to tell the story. In Egypt, instead of written language, they used pictures. I found it incredibly moving, giving you a sense of someone’s life.
The original concept for Kwillt was born from this experience. I wondered if we could digitize something similar for people today. Every life has a story to tell, and everyone has valuable wisdom to share. So, how could we bring that into the modern age and transform what is typically a 2D experience into something more interactive?
We came up with storytelling, something we call “3D storytelling,” and that’s what Kwillt evolved into. We started with the idea of remembrance after someone passes away, or a legacy version, where individuals can chronicle their entire life story before they pass. They can start from the beginning and share their stories.
For the remembrance side, you can invite a whole group to contribute to a story. Let’s say you’re putting together a memorial slideshow for someone who has passed. Usually, a sibling or the eldest child is responsible for this, which can be overwhelming. Also, the story is often told from just one perspective. With Kwillt, you can invite family members, close friends, or anyone who knows your loved one to share their stories at different points in their lives.
Often, at a memorial, you hear someone say, “Oh, I met your dad when he was playing basketball at Albany,” and they’ll share a great story. Now, with Kwillt, those stories can be shared on a timeline from various points of view.
As we started developing the product, we got about 100 users involved, and through their feedback, we realized that this idea could be applied to almost any life event. I’ll give some examples: My daughter plays water polo, and her team travelled to Italy for two weeks. Everyone had their phones out, taking pictures for Instagram, but those moments are brief—they scroll by, and then they’re gone.
If they had been using Kwillt, everyone could have collaborated in a private space where only our community could see it. We could all add stories, creating something we could share with parents back home. We found that to be a valuable experience, and we realized this concept could be applied to any event—clubs, teams, weddings, and more.
Can you imagine a wedding where you can gather everyone’s perspectives and capture what they did during your special weekend, keeping it all as a keepsake under the Kwillt umbrella? Then, you can start connecting all these relationships. That’s where Kwillt started and where it’s evolving if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: You mentioned cancel culture earlier. People think of it as either a left or right issue, but I’ve seen it across the political and social spectrum. So it’s less about culture and more about a tactic, would you agree?
Reams: Yes, that’s a subtle distinction, but it’s important. The idea of storytelling plays a part in authenticity and in telling a more comprehensive narrative, especially during select events.
Jacobsen: Why do you think authenticity has become a valued part of culture? I’ve read reports from professionals observing a rise in patterns of narcissism, at least in North America, over several decades—not in clinical settings, but as a social trend.
Reams: You’re seeing a few things happening. You’re seeing an increase in mental health issues—especially among young people, with anxiety being so common. There’s immense pressure to be what you think others expect you to be. But all that pressure is lifted in a safe, community-oriented setting. You can be yourself without fear of judgment. It’s about communicating, laughing together, and sharing experiences that add value to your life. That’s one aspect of it.
Another is telling your story your way without someone else twisting it to fit a certain narrative. I completely agree with you—it’s not a left-wing or right-wing issue. In our culture, certain groups control the narrative right now. I used to call it the middle 80%, but maybe we’re down to 60% because the fringes have grown so much. It’s become very difficult for people who are more level-headed, calm, and not easily triggered to voice what they think.
I’ve noticed more people disengaging from social media, especially those in your age group. For example, Gen Xers are probably the least likely to post anything on Instagram, but we’re much more prone to engaging in private groups. We’re using tools like WhatsApp or GroupMe, where I stay connected with my fraternity brothers from college. We reconnected during the pandemic, and technology allowed us to do that.
If we had a tool like Kwillt, we could upload stories and pictures in a safe environment, preserving and enjoying those memories together instead of just chatting. It’s entertainment, but it’s also a form of community. You mentioned narcissism earlier, and I don’t want to speak negatively about a particular group, but the Kardashian-style “me, me, me” culture has impacted America. It’s not all about the individual—it’s about friends, family, and loved ones. It’s about enjoying time together without outside influences judging you.
That’s my perspective. More people are starting to speak up than they previously wouldn’t have because they’re tired of the craziness on both sides. Unfortunately, in today’s society, a small group seems to be steering the direction of things.
Jacobsen: And there’s a broader potential issue here, where even the concept of authenticity could become a brand and, ironically, fake. In some ways, that could mirror many of the pathologies we noted earlier. How do you ensure, through Kwillt, that you don’t just brand authenticity but make it the foundation of the model you’re pursuing?
Reams: Yes. The community itself helps keep you in check. You’re sharing within groups close to you, so it’s not like we’re trying to be a social media platform. We’re focused on being a community platform. To us, “community” means family.
People are not as fake within their families. Some may embellish things or feel insecure and push their “best life,” but they’re more likely to be their authentic selves in scenarios where they feel safe. People feel more comfortable with family, a team, or creating something to share a pregnancy journey. For example, someone could use Kwillt to document their pregnancy from start to finish, and then after the baby is born, they could use it to ask family members to contribute to the child’s college fund. That’s the kind of meaningful use we’re aiming for.
Even if some things are a bit edited down, when you’re controlling who’s part of the group, you’re not as worried about outsiders making noise. Many online disruptions come from trolls just out to stir up trouble and antagonize others. That’s not good for anyone’s mental health or well-being. We’re the opposite of that experience if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: Yes, focusing on community and close relationships—family, cousins, and so on—does tie into the concept of boundaries in storytelling. You mentioned friends, family, sororities, fraternities, and other groups. That seems to be another important aspect of Kwillt. However, with any business model, especially a media model, the goal is often to expand. So, how do you scale up?
Reams: That’s a great question. Our business is built on the network effect. Take remembrance, for instance. In the original model, someone is creating a digital memorial or slideshow, and there are QR codes people can scan. Those who can’t attend the memorial in person can still view the slideshow. When you share the QR code or the link on social media or via email, even people who didn’t attend the event can access it. Out of 100 people who see it, some may create a Kwillt memorial for a loved one.
For example, after one memorial, four others might be created. Each person can leave comments or memories. Some may think, “I want to make one of these for Uncle Bill, who passed away,” and the network grows. The multiplier effect comes into play, and that’s how we see the community expanding exponentially.
We also have a “stitching” feature where users can stitch together relationships and experiences. This is where the community aspect and network effect come into play. We fully commit to this approach and believe the network effect will drive our growth. There are other ways to amplify that growth, but the network effect will make or break the platform.
Jacobsen: Have there been any Kwillts created for memorials around tragedies?
Reams: Yes, you nailed it, Scott. One of the first things we focused on was related to healthcare records. I’m adopted, so at one point, I didn’t know much about my DNA or medical history. I have a daughter, and people often ask about our family health records. Through Kwillt, we developed a tool called “Lifeline,” which allows users to share their health information with their family tree or anyone they’re connected with.
If there’s something like lupus running in a family or a tragic event, Kwillt provides a way for people to come together. We’re not trying to compete with Facebook communities, but we want to offer a space for people with shared experiences to connect, find support, and access resources. While we haven’t fully expanded into that area yet, the feature is there, and it aligns perfectly with the use case you described.
We will approach this from an angle where we could likely get some cosponsors to help backfill resources. While we won’t be experts in some areas, we believe groups will be interested in sponsoring and helping manage certain aspects. As you mentioned, shared experiences—even in grief, tragedies, or shared illnesses—are important for keeping diverse perspectives. How did you handle this? What were the signs? How did you cope as a caregiver? How did you deal with the stress? There are many angles that Kwillt was built to address.
Jacobsen: Are there areas where this could go wrong?
Reams: Of course, with anything, you might have rogue participants. Have you heard stories of someone writing a terrible obituary for their mother because they hated her? There are risks in that regard.
However, we have policing tools in place. Users can flag inappropriate content. As the owner of a patch, you have master admin rights. You also have some controls and safeguards to manage the content. The most significant risk is when families have rivalries or unresolved conflicts. Not everyone is perfect, and not every family member will want to participate.
That’s why we’ve built in different privacy levels: one-to-one, group, and public privacy options. These features allow users to control access and protect themselves. I believe we’ve put sufficient safeguards in place, but those are the areas where things could potentially go south.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on today’s conversation?
Reams: You’ve hit on where things are headed. People are just tired of being the product. Every aspect of their privacy is sold and monetized, and they want a digital experience that feels more like a positive rabbit hole of memories, something with emotional depth. That’s what Kwillt is all about.
Whether remembering a loved one and listening to an audio message they left behind or using the time-lapse feature to replay a wedding, much wisdom can be shared. It’s a completely different experience from what’s out there on social media today.
If you’ve ever seen Michael J. Fox’s documentary, it offers an authentic glimpse into his life. That’s the storytelling and timeline feature we want to encourage on Kwillt. People have so much wisdom to share. Imagine if grandkids could learn about what their grandparents did—an immense amount of knowledge is currently not being shared as it once was.
Hopefully, Kwillt will thrive, and people will start using it to gain its many benefits.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Lee, thank you for your time today.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/12
*Interview conducted September 26, 2024.*
Javier Larrondo Calafat is the President of Prisoners Defenders. Here we talk about the large number of political prisoners in Cuba.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are back here with Javier from Prisoners Defenders. I received the report indicating that 1,105 people are currently imprisoned for political reasons in Cuba. Based on my review of the report, fewer people were imprisoned this month than in previous months. Why the slowdown?
Javier Larrondo Calafat: Well, it’s natural for the number to slow down when it gets so high, and it has been sustained for so many years as people begin completing their sentences. This month, we saw 15 people removed from the list:
Thirteen of them completed their sentences.
One tragically committed suicide.
Another was forcibly expatriated from Cuba.
Additionally, there were only two new cases this month.
At this rate, the number of political prisoners could drop to around 1,000 within six to nine months, assuming nothing significant happens to increase the numbers. However, we still have 30 minors and 117 women on the list. Torture and mistreatment continue for the prisoners, and this report focuses on two or three particularly concerning issues.
One major issue is that people with mental illnesses are being placed in high-security prisons among dangerous inmates, leading to extreme suffering. To make matters worse, they are not receiving the medication they need. We’ve documented 62 such cases so far, but we expect that number to rise to 80.
We also focused on the poor nutritional conditions prisoners face. Many are underweight, falling below the United Nations’ minimum BMI of 18.5. We documented cases where individuals have BMIs as low as 15.78. For instance, some prisoners are 1.87 meters tall (6 feet 2 inches) but weigh only 58 kilograms (128 pounds). Another example is a man who is 1.80 meters tall (5 feet 10 inches) and weighs just 50 kilograms (110 pounds). These conditions put them at extreme risk.
Additionally, 329 prisoners are suffering from serious physical illnesses, putting their lives in danger. Their families are understandably desperate, and we wanted to highlight this issue.
Finally, we drew attention to the mistreatment of women prisoners, who are being separated from their children. The state takes custody of the children and places them in state-run centers where they are subjected to abuse. In one case, the child of a political prisoner has attempted suicide several times due to sexual harassment, bullying, and mistreatment.
In total, the situation for the 1,105 political prisoners in Cuba is extremely concerning.
Jacobsen: One last question: I appreciate your time. What about the minors in prison?
Calafat: Most minors are held in labour camps or under house arrest, with sentences averaging around five years. However, some are in actual prisons, ranging from 15 to 17 years old. In Cuba, minors as young as 15 can be imprisoned. The Cuban government has acknowledged our numbers and even higher ones to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. It’s a very concerning situation. Even those under house arrest are frequently harassed, detained, interrogated, and threatened by the authorities.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time, Javier.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/11
There is a petition to dissolve PIPS, which is associated with PULP Mag and The Runner. Devaki Mathivanan describes the petition’s lack of reasoning, suspicious student signatures, and concerns over conflicts of interest. PIPS decided not to take formal action, and there have been no significant responses from students or organizations. Mathivanan is the Operations Manager of the Polytechnic Ink Publishing Society. The Editor-in-Chief, Claudia Culley, of The Runner was interviewed, recently.
The case has been covered by Mornings with Simi, The Runner (also here), the Vancouver Sun, and MSN. PIPS is the umbrella organization for Pulp MAG and The Runner. Kwantlen Student Association: KSA is a non-profit organization incorporated under the Society Act, independent of Kwantlen Polytechnic University. This narrative begins with reportage on activities of the KSA by the staff of The Runner, with the public chapter beginning with a petition.
The current Kwantlen Student Association[1] Executives:
KSA Executives
Yashanpreet Guron – President & Vice President of Student Life
Yugveer Gill – Vice President of University Affairs
Paramvir Singh – Vice President External Affairs
Simranjot Sekhon – Vice President Finance & Operations
Ishant Goyal – Associate President
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Devaki Mathivanan. When you received the petition for the dissolution of PIPS, a group associated with PULP Mag and The Runner, the student newspaper, what were your initial impressions of this petition?
Devaki Mathivanan: The first thing that came to mind was why PIPS needs to be dissolved. The petition didn’t provide any reason for the dissolution. When a society is dissolved, something significant usually is to seek a petition. But this petition came out of nowhere, and we did not understand the reason behind the dissolving of society so suddenly.
The society was functioning well, the autonomy agreement was in place, and we followed the bylaws. Everything that needed to happen within the society was happening. So, initially, we thought there was a hidden motive. Someone didn’t like our reporting, so we received this petition. Those were our first thoughts. Later, we decided to verify the status of the students who had signed the petition.
Jacobsen: What surprised you during the process of verifying the students?
Mathivanan: Initially, whenever we needed to verify a student’s status, we asked for the student’s enrollment status and confirmation. But we couldn’t do that this time, so we contacted KPU to verify the students. Although the petition claimed 150 signatures, we found a series of discrepancies. Many student IDs were invalid, some names were incorrect, and in some cases, the student names and IDs didn’t match. We also found duplicate entries, where the same student had signed their name at the front of the petition and again at the back.
Additionally, many signatures appeared to be written in the same handwriting. While the name, student ID, and signature were correct, the handwriting looked suspiciously similar. We investigated further to understand why students had signed. We wanted to see if they had consented, read, and understood what they were signing. A few students said they needed to know the petition’s content. They signed it because they knew the person asking for signatures, and we believe peer pressure played a large role in this.
Some students said they were promised a trip to Cultus Lake, while others mentioned KSA-related meetings. Interestingly, we have yet to encounter a student who genuinely wanted to dissolve society.
None of the students we spoke with knew the petition’s content. This confirmed our suspicions that there was an ulterior motive behind the petition. We also learned that one of the student-elected senate members was collecting signatures for the petition. According to the PIPS bylaws at KPU, any student holding an elected position is ineligible to be a member of the society. We considered this a direct violation, so we decided not to hold an FGM for this petition. Instead, we shared our findings with the student who had submitted the petition.
This was the background of the petition we received and how we validated our concerns.
Jacobsen: Now, what about the requests in the petition? What were the particulars and the overarching thrust of the demands?
Mathivanan: Yes, the main request was for the society’s dissolution. Another significant point was the removal or deletion of Bylaw 11, which outlines the fourth state of independence. This bylaw allows any student union member or KPU official to serve on the board of PIPS and be a staff member of The Runner or PULP Mag. Removing this would impact how the publications function.
Additionally, they wanted to remove all articles related to the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA). The petition requested that all KSA-related content be removed from online platforms and printed materials.
Another demand was removing the current board members from the council, followed by a new election to appoint fresh board members. These were the primary contents of the petition.
Jacobsen: Even the mismatch between student IDs and names, invalid student IDs, and concerns about a conflict of interest with an elected KSA member collecting signatures for the petition, what has PIPS decided to do with the petition?
Mathivanan: Yes, we didn’t take any formal action. That’s what we decided, and our board agreed. We didn’t pursue any further action. Instead, we documented everything that happened and kept a record of all the details. However, since only one student emailed us, we needed more resources or support to investigate all 150 students involved or find out who was working behind the petition.
As such, we have yet to decide on any specific action to address the mismatches or discrepancies, apart from questioning why it was handled this way.
Jacobsen: Has there been any response from the student body or student association regarding PIPS’ decision not to proceed with the petition to dissolve?
Mathivanan: No, we haven’t received any comments from anyone about it. We spoke with KPU officials, who said they would assist if we decided to hold a Special General Meeting (SGM). Still, apart from that, we have yet to hear from any student body or organization regarding the petition. You’ve already mentioned it in your story.
We have covered this in a story, explaining that we received the petition and detailed what happened. Still, we haven’t heard anything from anyone about the petition or the decision not to hold an SGM.
Jacobsen: Students only pay 75 cents per credit to participate in or contribute to PIPS. Have you received any emails or complaints from students regarding this 75-cent contribution per credit?
Mathivanan: None, absolutely none. Students can opt-out and get a refund for the publication fees they pay.
We hardly receive requests to opt-out or get a refund for the publication fee. In the last fiscal year, we received only one opt-out request. We refunded, I think, about five dollars to that student.
That’s all we had last year, so we rarely receive requests for refunds. We have an option available if students want to opt out, but to the best of my knowledge, we haven’t received any complaints from students so far.
Jacobsen: Are there any parts of this story that haven’t been sufficiently covered in public reporting—whether in theVancouver Sun, Richmond News, or the little bits I’ve worked on? Are there any developments that should be added to this particular story?
Mathivanan: Everything regarding the petition has been covered. So, yeah.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Devaki, thank you very much for your time.
Mathivanan: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for meeting and writing a story supporting us.
It’s been a wonderful, overwhelming experience, especially when a student newspaper is affected. Receiving this kind of support means a lot. Thank you so much.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/11
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing, combined with proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.
Chip Lupo: That’s a great question. There are none.
Jacobsen: When we look at the general diversity index among U.S. states, which states have you found to be the most diverse?
Lupo: According to our research, Scott, the top three states—unsurprisingly—are California, Texas, and New Jersey. These states are home to large immigrant populations and major metropolitan areas, contributing to their high diversity rankings. California, for instance, has a long history of immigration and is known for its significant Latino, Asian, and African American populations.
Jacobsen: Which states are the least diverse, and are there any hypotheses as to why?
Lupo: The least diverse states—the bottom five—are Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Montana, and Wyoming. These states tend to have smaller populations and are predominantly rural and homogenous regarding ethnicity and race. The geographical isolation of some of these states and limited economic opportunities may also contribute to their lack of diversity.
Jacobsen: Based on the index, why is California such a highly diverse state?
Lupo: California’s diversity is influenced by several factors. Its proximity to Mexico and its role as a gateway for immigration from Asia contribute significantly. Additionally, California ranks highly in both socioeconomic and cultural diversity. Socioeconomic diversity refers to the wide range of household incomes, from low-income households to those earning over $150,000 annually. Cultural diversity includes linguistic diversity—whether English, Spanish, or another language is spoken at home—and racial and ethnic diversity, with large Hispanic, Asian, and African American populations.
Jacobsen: There is an old quote from Frederick Douglass in which he predicted, long ago, that it was not necessarily what he wanted to happen or not want to happen, but what he saw as the inevitable result of societal movements, cultures, and immigration patterns. This was briefly mentioned in the report. When does the Census Bureau predict that the United States will no longer have a single ethnic majority?
Lupo: I’m glad you brought that up. Douglass was referring to the “melting pot,” and his concern was assimilation. According to the Census Bureau, by 2045, the United States will no longer have a single ethnic majority. Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up the largest group. Still, demographic changes, especially immigration and birth rates among minority populations, are shifting that balance. States like California, Texas, Florida, and New York already reflect this trend, with no single group making up a majority.
Between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, the probability that two randomly selected Americans would be from different racial or ethnic groups increased from 54.9% to 61.1%.
Jacobsen: How was the index developed regarding the weighting of the various contributing factors, and why was that particular weighting chosen?
Lupo: That’s a critical question. We compared all 50 states across six key dimensions. In addition to socioeconomic and cultural diversity, we included economic diversity (which measures the variety of industries and job types), household diversity (including household composition and size), religious diversity (representing the range of religious affiliations), and political diversity (capturing the spread of political views within the state). Each factor was weighted based on its impact on social cohesion and representation.
Lupo: We placed the most weight within the cultural diversity dimension, particularly racial and ethnic diversity, where we applied triple weight. We put significant emphasis on this aspect, focusing on racial and ethnic categories such as Hispanic, Latino, white, Black, and African, as discussed previously. We also heavily weighed linguistic diversity, particularly in households where English is not the primary language.
We assigned a double weight to household income diversity, a key factor. Industry diversity was another important element. This falls under the economic diversity dimension, and we also weighed it considerably. Industry diversity refers to the wide range of businesses and industries that drive economic activity in these states.
These industries include agriculture, construction, manufacturing, finance, insurance, public administration, and educational services. What else did we emphasize heavily? Those were the major ones. Additionally, we applied full weight to metrics such as worker class diversity, covering categories like wage versus salary, government workers, self-employed workers, and marital status, including never married, divorced, separated, and widowed.
Household diversity was also an important factor. This is an interesting dimension because the most diverse states tend to have various household compositions, from two-person family households to seven-person or larger non-family households. This diversity is common in states with higher overall diversity rankings.
Jacobsen: What are the positives and negatives of living in a more diverse state, especially regarding the general values many Americans hold? For instance, if you were to generalize American values and preferences broadly, were these aspects considered in your analysis?
Lupo: The positive aspect is that diversity allows people from different backgrounds to share local services and institutions within their states. It encourages the promotion and embracing of diverse cultures and ideas. This is important because the U.S. was founded on the notion of being a melting pot, where people from various countries came together and assimilated.
However, a possible negative is that some U.S. residents may feel that recent immigrants are not assimilating into American culture as quickly as previous generations did. This could lead to fears about cultural fragmentation.
Jacobsen: What are Americans most comfortable and uncomfortable with regarding diversity? For example, gender and racial diversity are at the forefront of public consciousness. Still, when it comes to economic diversity, more Americans prefer less disparity, such as a smaller economic gap between people.
Lupo: That’s a good point. Regarding concerns about diversity, there’s discomfort surrounding the overburdening of infrastructure—whether it’s schools, hospitals, or law enforcement. These issues often arise when discussing immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Many Americans are generally supportive of legal immigration, but there’s more concern when it comes to illegal immigration. The hope is that immigrants will enter through legal channels, assimilate, and become part of American culture.
Additionally, there’s the economic concern that immigrants may take jobs that Americans might otherwise perform. These are ongoing issues that are part of the national conversation.
Jacobsen: Which states are projected to become significantly more diverse by the 2030s compared to now?
Lupo: One state to watch is Colorado. Its diversity numbers have risen significantly, especially as California becomes more crowded and people relocate. Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona are all states to watch. Additionally, New York ranked fourth in our index, building a strong and diverse base.
Look for that diversity to expand beyond the New York City metro area. In other parts of New York state, I imagine New York will be as diverse as California or Texas in another generation.
Jacobsen: Are there any other significant points in the report and analysis that haven’t been mentioned yet?
We discussed where California, Texas, and Florida performed well, particularly in socioeconomic and cultural diversity. However, where they did not perform as well, and this surprised me, was in religious diversity. They aren’t as religiously diverse. That’s an interesting point I hadn’t considered. Yes, as you might expect. And then there’s political diversity.
Jacobsen: It’s funny because I’ve done interviews with both religious leaders and non-religious leaders for so long. Still, I forgot to ask about religious diversity in this context. You develop certain patterns as a journalist and sometimes miss these nuances.
It’s like when an economics journalist focuses on real estate but forgets to ask about the economic impacts. It’s funny how those gaps happen. Anyway, please continue.
Lupo: California’s and Texas’s rich diversity did not extend to political diversity. If you look at an electoral college map, this becomes apparent. Both states lean toward one ideology, so California or Texas has little “purple” or political diversity.
On the other hand, Florida is more of a political melting pot and performs better regarding religious diversity. As these states become more diverse, the range of political ideologies may become more integrated into the diverse landscape in California and Texas.
Jacobsen: Well, Mr. Lupo, thank you for your time today.
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus, a leading antiracism educator, reflects on his upbringing in a multiracial, interfaith family and how those experiences shaped his parenting and advocacy. Raised in a racially tense town south of Boston with his adopted African American brother, McManus witnessed systemic racism and antisemitism firsthand. He emphasizes that parents must engage children early with age-appropriate, inclusive conversations about race, identity, and oppression. He warns against shielding children from reality, noting that children of color face these issues from birth. McManus advocates intentional, values-based parenting that fosters critical thinking, empathy, and resilience in today’s increasingly polarized society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Joe-Joe McManus. We will be talking about family, your upbringing, and how those experiences can inform parenting—not in an overbearing way, but in ways that might be helpful. I wrote a piece for a small platform called The Court of Camelittle. So it goes:
Because nothing is manlier than:
ranting on hypergamy at 2 a.m.
being obsessed about meat and men without shirts.
rating everyone’s sexual market value like day-traders.
proclaiming yourself an alpha male on Reddit.
spending Friday night memorizing pickup lines.
announcing you’re going your own way — then publishing a manifesto.
calling women shallow.
punching homosexuals.
launching a red-pill podcast for no one.
warning women about “the Wall” while ignoring a receding hairline.
tweeting all Andrew Tate’s tenets before breakfast.
boasting about your NoFap “superpowers” during a blackout.
calling strangers “soy boys” while sipping a soy-milk latte.
dropping your bench-press PR into every thread.
ranking unwatched manosphere podcasts.
“negging” dates because a pickup blog said so.
paying $2,997 to learn “hi.”
chewing a jaw exerciser to looks-maxx.
tweeting your monk-mode focus journey.
launching a crypto hustle “for the bros.”
starting each dawn with an “alpha” cold shower and ending it flame-posting on Reddit.
live-tweeting your No-Nut-November “streak.
Growing up in the United States several decades ago—as a mixed person with an African American brother—how did your family navigate conversations that might have been more difficult for other families in other contexts? These conversations can be confusing because Americans are keen on free speech and their identities. Conversations around identity can be complicated because the country is in a strange place: it is middling in age. European countries are old. America is a few centuries old—young compared to some, but not new.
You have the theft of land from Mexicans and Native Americans. You have the transatlantic slave trade, mainly from Western Africa. You also have Europeans who were not considered white for long periods—hence signs like “No Blacks, No Jews, No Irish.” These contexts make up a historical backdrop and can weigh heavily on conversations—especially when those conversations are awkward or involve young children.
So, how did your family navigate those conversations? And what can other families learn from that experience?
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus: Wow. That is a whole lot that you brought up there. There’s a lot to unpack.
First, I think of the U.S. more as a young nation. If we compare ourselves to China or other older civilizations, we are not even teenagers yet. And in terms of free speech—that’s a layered issue. Most Americans say they believe in free speech… as long as they agree with what’s being said.
That is coming out a lot right now—because free speech and academic freedom are under attack, which is an extension of free speech. And I think that has often been the case in our history: free speech is conditional.
As far as growing up in my family, my mom was Jewish, my dad was Irish Catholic with some English ancestry, and they adopted my brother, who is African American.
We grew up in a white-flight town south of Boston, Massachusetts. And Boston, of course, has never exactly been heralded as a bastion of integration or multicultural love—it has long been seen as a racist city. I grew up during a time of white flight when people were leaving Boston to avoid the desegregation of schools.
The town I lived in had been predominantly Cape Verdean, Puerto Rican, and African American, but it quickly transitioned to mostly Irish and Italian families—people who had moved from Boston specifically to avoid integrated schools. It was a time of significant transition in that town.
There was a lot of hate and much anger—primarily racism, but also a significant amount of antisemitism. Even in that part of the country, there was also some anti-Catholic sentiment. Our family sat at the intersection of all of that.
Jacobsen: That is Richard Pryor’s joke—”Get him, he’s all of them.”
McManus: That’s right. I grew up with some fantastic people, however. I have two brothers—my brother Casey, who is adopted and just eleven months younger than me, and my brother BJ, who is four years younger and looks nothing like me. He has blonde hair and blue eyes—he looks more like our dad.
We used to joke that when we went to Boston, we could not go to any one neighbourhood where all three of us would be accepted. Depending on where we went, we always knew which of us we had to protect the most. That was just a regular part of our experience.
The town we grew up in is interesting. I went back recently because I was invited to give a book talk. About 35 years ago, I was asked to provide one of my first professional talks about racism at that school. The teacher who invited me back then did not need special permission—she set up an assembly, everyone came, and I spoke. Then, I visited classrooms and led small workshops.
But this time, it was different. I had to meet with the principal, the superintendent, and the multicultural committee. They ultimately decided that the topic of racism and white supremacy was too controversial, and I was not invited to speak at the school. So, instead, we hosted the event on a weekend and opened it to the public.
In the book, I talk about growing up there and the racism my brother faced and how it affected him and our entire family. When we talk about our upbringing and how it shapes us, there is a lot to reflect on.
I now advise executive leaders—primarily in higher education and corporate and government sectors. I’ve done that mainly in the U.S., but also in some other countries. One thing that seems to be universal is that when people are trying to defend oppressive belief systems, they often start by telling me about their childhood—why they believe what they believe.
It fascinates me. These people are otherwise intelligent, highly accomplished, and in positions of absolute power. They are leading massive organizations. But when it comes to these issues, they become irrational. They set aside their critical thinking skills. It becomes about belief systems.
They will tell me something like, “When I was young, I was taught X,” and then use that to justify beliefs they hold now. And I always ask them, “What else did you believe when you were ten that you no longer believe today?”
I remind them that for many, many years—decades, in most cases—they have been in charge of what they have learned, where they have lived, whom they have befriended, what experiences they have allowed themselves to have, where they have travelled, and all the other things that shape who we are. They have to take responsibility for that.
So yes, it is essential to talk about parenting and how it influences our beliefs—because that is huge. However, as adults, we must also take responsibility for our beliefs and not use our upbringing as an excuse.
Jacobsen: When I talk to child psychologists, they often focus on the child’s emotional development, the child’s educational advancement, and the child’s moral sophistication. These are all distinct but interconnected factors. To be emotionally regulated is necessary for the ability to study, and studying is essential for academic success, these things are not neatly segmented. They reinforce one another.
Your expertise is around how Americans relate to one another through identity—and how to introduce perspective and clarity, maybe even a bit of cold water, so people can better understand each other and relate more healthily.
For parents trying to navigate these complicated American spaces—especially in a politically charged environment—how can they ensure there is room for their children to explore and come to their realizations in their own time?
McManus: Well, there are different aspects to being a parent—and different spheres where you have control and where you have none. Sometimes, it feels like you have no power, especially as children grow older.
I have a 14-year-old daughter now. And over the course of her life, I have realized just how little I knew about parenting—even though my parents were wonderful.
It is like when people say they understand the educational system because they were once students. It is similar to parenting. Just because you were once a kid in a family does not mean you understand parenting.
You have a perspective on parenting—based on what your parents did—but as a kid, you do not understand why your parents did what they did. A lot of what parenting ends up being on-the-job training.
Jacobsen: That’s a great line.
McManus: So I think we often look back—even those of us who are diligent and intentional—and realize we are constantly learning as we go.
I am conscious of all these issues and constantly trying to help my child think critically, develop her own perspectives, and understand the world around her. And yet, when I look back, I think of all the missed opportunities.
I think it is important not to beat ourselves up about that—but at the same time, we should try to take advantage of opportunities when we can to offer these moments of insight and growth to our kids.
We all want to protect our children. That instinct is universal—or at least I hope it is. Often, for example, white parents are afraid to bring up complex topics like race with their children. They do not want to “corrupt” them or burden them with heavy issues at a young age. But I would ask those parents to consider that children of colour are often forced to deal with those same issues from day one.
And as long as we live in systems that perpetuate racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, it is essential to recognize that children begin absorbing those messages at the earliest ages.
So if we are serious about not raising our children to internalize those harmful systems—if we want to raise children with open minds, rooted in love and antiracist values—then it has to begin early. Early childhood educators tell us: yes, there is such a thing as age-appropriate content. But it is not really about the issues themselves but about how you bring them up.
With little kids, it can be as simple as what toys they play with or what they see on television. Are they seeing a variety of people? Are they interacting with people from different backgrounds in your everyday life?
And that is often where people realize their gaps—who they are, who they relate to, and who they surround themselves with. Some parents look around and learn, “I don’t have a diverse group of friends around my kids.”
Then they wonder, “How do I fix that right now?” And the answer is—it is not that simple. But we must try. We have to make every effort possible as early as we can.
Jacobsen: Dr. McManus, thank you for your time today.
McManus: All right. Bye. Have a good rest of your day.
Tre Lovell, a top entertainment attorney, talked about Hollywood’s political landscape, the role of Hollywood Ambassadors, and legal reforms. Lovell discusses Hollywood’s subjectivity, where political bias can impact careers. He advocates legal protections against political discrimination and explores cultural shifts affecting conservative actors. Chris Pratt exemplifies how religious expression remains more accepted than political views. Lovell advises actors to be mindful of branding, as political statements can alienate audiences. He also examines the legal consequences of scandals in Hollywood and suggests strategies to foster bipartisanship and fairness in the industry.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Tre Lovell, a Beverly Hills-based entertainment, corporate, and intellectual property attorney and partner at The Lovell Firm. He has over 25 years of legal experience and is recognized as among the top 1% of litigators in the U.S. Lovell represents individuals and corporations in business law, entertainment law, employment law, and high-stakes litigation. A sought-after legal commentator, he has provided insights on cases involving Alec Baldwin, Hall & Oates, and Prince Harry on CBS News, Court TV, Fox News, and Entertainment Tonight. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule. So, what is a Hollywood Ambassador’s official role and potential influence? Just for clarification for those reading this.
Tre Lovell: Yes. I don’t know. I haven’t seen much regarding what they’re doing or their obligations. I understand that he wants to give a greater voice to Hollywood, probably support the business and the industry, and encourage more nonpartisanship. That’s my understanding, but I haven’t seen much beyond that.
Jacobsen: Do you think this might add nonpartisanship and bipartisanship by introducing more conservative figures into what is typically framed as a liberal bastion? Could this allow conservatives in Hollywood to express their views more openly without facing the backlash that has typically occurred?
Lovell: Hollywood is a highly subjective hiring, casting, and decision-making industry. Political views can seep in and influence decisions without being explicitly acknowledged.
Jacobsen: Do you feel this is particularly acute for individuals who openly profess a Christian faith in Hollywood, alongside holding conservative political and social perspectives?
Lovell: Hollywood is an industry built on subjectivity. Political views and personal biases can remain hidden yet still impact hiring decisions. Hollywood operates differently from other industries, where qualifications and experience are more objective measures.
Jacobsen: Given the industry’s subjective nature—where hiring, acting opportunities, and project selection involve countless decisions each season—would you say Hollywood is inherently mercurial because it is shaped by shifting relationships and personal preferences?
Lovell: Yes, it’s an industry built on subjectivity. Because of that, political views, personal preferences, and biases can remain hidden but still have significant influence. Compared to other industries, these factors can more pronounced affect opportunities and careers.
Jacobsen: Do you think this initiative will be more than symbolic? Could it impact casting decisions, marketing strategies, and deal-making in Hollywood?
Lovell: Hollywood is becoming more open to conservatives, and this ambassador likely wants to help the industry. He can support Hollywood through tax credits, financial subsidies, and government incentives. There are many ways the government can assist the entertainment industry.
This initiative presents an opportunity to reduce partisan divisions and encourage greater support from Republican leadership. The goal is to create a more balanced, less one-sided approach to industry support, which could temper the intense partisanship currently present in Hollywood.
Jacobsen: Could there be other measures beyond these ambassadorial positions to put pressure on the industry, particularly through legal and contractual implications for professionals? With your legal expertise, are there additional steps—perhaps beyond the symbolic aspect of these appointments—that could be more substantive? What about measures that may not receive as much media attention but could lead to real legal and contractual changes to address the one-sidedness you’re referencing?
Lovell: Legal reform is very necessary. One of the most pervasive forms of discrimination today is political discrimination. It has reached a level where people refuse to work with others with differing political views.
Political discrimination has become a significant issue. People won’t hire them, and they won’t use their goods and services—political discrimination has become a significant issue. Legal reform is needed to ensure that political discrimination is protected against, just as racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination is. It should be categorized under existing anti-discrimination protections.
California does have laws that prohibit hiring and firing based on political beliefs. However, we need broader legal reforms so that it is explicitly unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their political beliefs or how they exercise their right to vote.
Additionally, Hollywood should implement measures to ensure these protections are enforced. That is the next step in addressing this political bias.
Jacobsen: But what about cultural changes? Let’s say more ambassadors are put in place, and some legal and contractual measures are introduced to encourage bipartisanship—if not outright nonpartisanship—when it comes to creative production in Hollywood.
From a cultural standpoint, what reforms could industry professionals implement regarding outreach, casting, and hiring practices? Would any of these changes happen naturally if internal pressure is applied?
Or will everything ultimately depend on legal and contractual changes, alongside the ambassadorial efforts of conservative industry leaders?
Lovell: First, I don’t believe employers currently do this, but political beliefs should not be a factor in hiring decisions. Employers should not be allowed to ask candidates about their political beliefs—such information would only be known if the individual chooses to disclose it.
Jacobsen: If we focus specifically on actors, they sometimes face issues when expressing their political beliefs. While they are fully allowed to do so, they risk alienating a portion of the audience, correct?
Lovell: Actors sometimes need to be cautious about their brand, their name, and their overall likability with audiences. I’m not saying they shouldn’t express their opinions, but given that an actor’s career is often tied to their public perception, political statements can have a direct impact on their likability.
Other than that, it seems like a challenging situation. As you mentioned, legal reform and addressing systemic imbalances might help, but is there much else that can be done.
Jacobsen: There is significant room for improvement, as we’ve discussed. But what about areas where Hollywood, despite its reputation for partisanship, does a good job of fostering nonpartisan or even bipartisan creative endeavours?
Lovell: That should be the goal—to take partisanship out of the equation.
The aim should be to make the industry nonpartisan or at least more bipartisan. However, the key issue that needs to be corrected is bias in hiring, where individuals may be excluded due to their political beliefs. That is the core problem that needs to be addressed.
It can be resolved in a few ways: individuals could choose not to voice their political opinions, or the industry could foster a more open environment where expressing political views does not lead to negative repercussions.
Jacobsen: How do we accomplish that?
Lovell: We address it through legal reform.
We also implement procedures and policies that protect against political discrimination. If Trump contacts Hollywood ambassadors and his administration makes efforts to support the industry, that could also have a significant impact.
That type of engagement could create an organic shift as industry professionals begin to see outreach from conservative leadership, demonstrating a willingness to help.
Jacobsen: That would also create bipartisanship and lessen the negative impact on conservative expression.
Efforts to support the industry can happen organically through policy changes, but they can also be reinforced legally more objectively. For example, making it clear that political discrimination is against the law—if you refuse to hire someone due to their political beliefs, you could face legal consequences.
What is your recommendation for industry actors, actresses, and other creatives to protect themselves in an increasingly politically hostile environment?
Lovell: Are you referring to legal protection or maintaining a public record of their stance?
Jacobsen: Yes, from a legal perspective.
Lovell: You don’t want to suppress someone’s beliefs entirely, but there is a time and place for everything. The Academy Awards are not necessarily the right venue for delivering a political speech.
If you choose to voice your views publicly, you will receive attention, but you will also risk alienating part of the audience. That’s the challenge with political beliefs—you will always have a segment of the population that disagrees with you.
Jacobsen: What should the public understand about actors at different levels—tier one, tier two, and so on—regarding the idea of a personal brand?
It’s probably similar to how people watch a comedian and assume that it fully reflects their real personality. What should people know about distinguishing between an actor’s brand and themselves?
Lovell: An actor’s success relies on popularity and likability to get work, secure endorsements, and remain marketable.
Their brand becomes their identity in the public eye, allowing them to land commercial deals and sponsorships. Everyone needs to understand that their image and brand drive their career opportunities.
If an actor gets arrested, engages in illegal activities, or harms others, it damages their brand, creates personal animus, and can significantly impact their career.
Similarly, when actors delve into politics, they inevitably take a stance that some people will disagree with. That can affect their movie attendance, TV ratings, concert sales, and overall career prospects.
Managers, agents, and attorneys typically advise their clients—whether they are actors, musicians, or other public figures—not to express political views. Because they will inevitably alienate a percentage of their audience. That is the best course of action to protect their career.
Jacobsen: So, is no agent or manager encouraging their clients to speak publicly about politics?
Lovell: No, no agent or manager is actively pushing their clients to make political statements.
Jacobsen: Are there any other legal aspects we should cover that are important for industry professionals to be aware of? The actor from Guardians of the Galaxy. He’s a Christian guy. He is probably in his late 30s or early 40s. What’s his name? His name is Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt is very open about his Christian faith. It does not seem to negatively impact his professional opportunities or success, and helps in some circles, it helps.
Your distinction between politics and religious views is important because it marks a unique shift in American culture over the last decade or two. Religious views are now less controversial than political views. Based on the evidence you’ve seen, why did that shift happen?
Lovell: People are generally more accepting of different religious views, especially in a society with various cultures and religions. Religion, for many, is a personal matter and does not necessarily directly affect workplace dynamics.
Politics, on the other hand, has become something entirely different. It is deeply personal, often more like a religion in itself. People hold their political beliefs so strongly that disagreements can ruin friendships and families.
By contrast, people tend to be more tolerant of religious differences. They may not agree with someone’s faith, but they are less likely to alienate them over it. Politics, however, is different—political disagreements have a much greater potential to cause division.
Jacobsen: Looking at high-profile cases—Alec Baldwin, Matthew Perry, Sean Combs—what can you say about the legal fallout that results from scandals or personal and professional crises in an actor’s life? What is the level of stress that comes with a public controversy? The disincentive to avoid these situations must be extraordinary.
Lovell: Yes. Absolutely. Situations like these can ruin careers.
Legal issues can seriously impact an actor, depending on the circumstances. When a major controversy arises, the consequences can be severe.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Washington, D.C. saw a 19.6% drop in weekly unemployment claims but remains second-to-last nationwide due to a 91.25% increase year-over-year. Chip Lupoexplains that D.C.’s job market is vulnerable due to federal employment volatility, legal uncertainties, and limited private-sector alternatives. Neighboring states like Maryland and Virginia offer stronger job prospects. While D.C. struggles, New Hampshire continues to perform well. Broader trends reveal long-term disparities, with states like Kentucky suffering from high unemployment tied to declining industries. Lupo warns that economic instability affects not only wages and tax revenue but also migration, political sentiment, and long-term wealth distribution across the U.S.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, the District of Columbia saw a 19.6% decrease in unemployment claims compared to the previous week, which sounds promising. But it’s still showing a 91.25% increase from the same time last year. So overall, it’s ranked 50th in the nation. Kentucky is doing the worst, and D.C. is second to last. In contrast, our last interview focused on New Hampshire, which is among the top performers. To clarify, is Sununu still the governor of New Hampshire?
Chip Lupo: No—Chris Sununu is no longer the governor. He left office at the end of his term, and Republican Kelly Ayotte was inaugurated as New Hampshire’s governor in January 2025. So, while there’s been a change in leadership, the party remained the same.
Jacobsen: Got it. So, the week-over-week improvement looks decent, but the year-over-year data is dramatically worse. What’s going on there?
Lupo: D.C. is a special case. The 19.6% week-over-week drop in claims is a strong short-term signal, but the over 91% year-over-year increase suggests some structural or policy-related disruptions that have unfolded over the past 12 months.
This could be linked to several factors, including leadership transitions and legal or bureaucratic processes that affect public employment. In D.C., federal employment dominates the job market, and when there’s turnover at the federal level—new leadership, changes in congressional funding priorities, and legal disputes—employment numbers can swing wildly.
There are also ongoing court cases regarding firing federal workers, which adds even more uncertainty. Depending on how those rulings go, we could see big shifts in either direction.
Jacobsen: Is D.C. affected by the same anticipated tightening of work requirements for public assistance that you mentioned with other states?
Lupo: Absolutely. However, D.C. may see a delayed or muted response compared to other states because it doesn’t have the same private-sector foundation that a place like New Hampshire or Utah might have. The surrounding states—Maryland and Virginia—offer more robust private-sector job markets, especially in tech, government contracting, and healthcare.
If you’re a federal worker in D.C. who loses your job, you may have better luck finding a similar position in state government in those neighbouring states. Unlike federal roles, most state-level positions aren’t targeted for large-scale cuts.
Jacobsen: And D.C. itself—just to be clear—it’s not technically a state, right?
Lupo: Correct. Washington, D.C., is a federal district, not a state. A mayor and a city council govern it. The current mayor is Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, and she’s been in office since 2015.
Jacobsen: Mayor Bowser. So we’ve got a federal district with strong Democratic leadership, dealing with instability from the federal level, while nearby Republican-led states like New Hampshire are pushing ahead with stronger economic indicators.
Lupo: Exactly. It highlights how regional dynamics, state policies, and federal employment dependencies create vastly different labour outcomes—even within a relatively small geographic area.
So, Washington, D.C. has been under Democratic leadership for generations, and it’ll likely continue in that direction. That’s one reason there’s always been a push to make it a state. Doing so would add two Senate seats, which would almost certainly go to the Democrats, potentially shifting the balance of power in Congress—at least that’s the prevailing theory.
Jacobsen: Looking at the numbers, D.C. has 208 unemployment claims per 100,000 people. What does that number tell us in context?
Lupo: Right—208 claims per 100,000 people is certainly not great, but it’s not quite dead last. It’s toward the bottom. California is slightly worse at 211, Oregon at 246, and Kentucky ranks last at 249 per 100,000.
Jacobsen: What economic impact do these high unemployment rates have on a state’s potential economy? And I use “potential” deliberately here—thinking about lost productivity, wages, and downstream effects.
Lupo: The economic gap is significant if you’re looking at a place like the District of Columbia or Kentucky compared to a high-performing state like New Hampshire. We’re talking hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars in lost wages, lost tax revenue, and reduced consumer spending over a year.
However, the effects go beyond the purely economic. High unemployment and rising poverty tend to create political consequences. Voters get frustrated. When people are out of work, struggling to make ends meet, and watching the cost of living increase, there’s often a groundswell of discontent that leads to a call for new leadership—or at least a serious shift in policy.
We’ve seen signs of that in California, for instance. Even if the dissatisfaction isn’t strictly about unemployment, broader discontent—over affordability, public services, and housing—can quickly be linked to economic indicators.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. For context, I’m still here—just following along and reading some numbers on my end. Daniel Goldberg, an associate professor and the academic director of the Business Management BBA Program at Temple University, pointed out that even when unemployment numbers appear relatively stable, we’re still not back to pre-pandemic levels—roughly late 2019 or early 2020 benchmarks. In many regions, unemployment remains higher than five or six years ago.
Lupo: That’s exactly right. While weekly unemployment claims are an important measure of short-term changes, broader economic health requires considering multi-year trends. Even in states that have improved, such as New Hampshire, we’re still watching to see whether these gains are sustainable and whether workers are entering quality jobs, not just temporary ones.
In places like D.C. or Kentucky, where unemployment claims remain high, it’s not just about recovering jobs—it’s about building an economy that supports long-term stability and growth. Without that, a temporary drop in claims won’t improve poverty, productivity, or voter satisfaction.
Jacobsen: So if this disparity has played out over half a decade or more, especially in what is still the largest economy in the world, then we are talking about billions of dollars in lost potential—not just for the national economy but for the improved livelihoods of Americans, particularly in struggling regions like D.C. and Kentucky. Does this disparity in unemployment rates eventually lead to disparities in wealth distribution across states in the U.S.? Is that just a natural consequence?
Lupo: Absolutely. That’s a direct consequence. Over time, high unemployment leads to lower household income, less investment, and fewer opportunities for upward mobility in those states.
People also tend to begin relocating. When job opportunities and tax burdens become untenable, residents move to job-friendly or tax-friendly states. That migration creates a feedback loop—states losing population also lose tax revenue, which limits their ability to invest in services and infrastructure, making the economic outlook even worse.
So when individuals are cash-strapped, the state eventually becomes cash-strapped, too. Fewer residents mean a smaller tax base, which makes recovery even harder.
Jacobsen: I’d like to ask you one more before we wrap up. Yalcin Asik Goz, an associate professor at Appalachian State University, pointed out that unemployment figures should also be analyzed by industry, not just at the macro level. So, in places like D.C. and Kentucky, are specific industries relatively unaffected while others see significantly higher unemployment rates?
Lupo: Yes, and that’s a crucial point. One of the core challenges is that certain states are more concentrated in industries vulnerable to economic shifts. For instance, D.C. is heavily dependent on government employment, so changes in federal staffing levels or budget constraints hit the region especially hard. On the other hand, Kentucky has historically relied on energy sectors like coal and some agriculture and manufacturing, which are often sensitive to global market trends and policy shifts.
In contrast, high-tech continues to be more resilient. Sectors like AI are poised to grow, creating massive demand for energy infrastructure—especially power data centers and AI systems. If those states can adapt to support the transition, that could benefit the energy sector.
At the same time, we’re starting to see a reshoring trend in blue-collar jobs, particularly in automotive manufacturing. If tariff strategies from the current administration work out, we could see more factories reopening in states like Kentucky—especially from car companies and other manufacturers that had previously offshored operations. That would be a substantial economic boost.
Jacobsen: Those are all the questions I have today. As always, I appreciate your time, and I’m sure I’ll follow up soon.
Lupo: I appreciate the conversation, Scott. It’s always a pleasure. And just one more thing—our team recently published a financial literacy study that took off. I’ve seen people all over that, and it’s great to see because we have a financial literacy problem in this country.
Jacobsen: Absolutely. It’s great that it’s getting attention. George Carlin put it best: “People are spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need.”
Lupo: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: That’s a brutal but accurate summary. Fantastic. Thanks, Chip.
Sofie Roos is a licensed sexologist and relationship therapist with over 18 years of experience. Based in Stockholm, she specializes in sexual health, intimacy, and couples therapy. She works at Venhälsan and writes for Passionerad, offering expert guidance on sex, relationships, STDs, and sex toys to diverse audiences. Roos explains how romantic body language reflects emotional connection. From mirroring gestures and eye contact to subtle physical touches, partners reveal closeness or distance nonverbally. These cues evolve over time and differ culturally. Roos writes for Sweden’s Passionerad: https://passionerad.se/.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does body language between romantic partners reflect emotional connectivity?
Sofie Roos: For most couples, the body language works as a mirror showing the emotional closeness, so you can tell a lot by two partners’ emotional connection by viewing their body language when being together!
When there’s a strong emotional contact between two partners, they often make spontaneous bodily acts out of attraction, comfortness, safety and desire, such as making deep eye contact, mirroring each others body language (for example if someone leans against a bar desk, the other one does the same, or if one tilt their head, the other one does that too), they lean against each other, let their legs touch when sitting on a bus or on a bench, they touch each other while laughing and does other small gestures of affection.
Most of this subtle body language is done unconsciously, and happens genuinely out of being in harmony and balance with each other!
Jacobsen: What are nonverbal cues indicating attraction in couples?
Roos: There’s quite many signs to look for, such as holding eye contact for long, many times combined with a smile, to face each other with open bodies (not crossing arms, but standing straight and inviting), mirroring each others body language, touching each other while talking and changing tone of voice to a softer and warmer tone while interacting.
Face expressions such as smiling, following the partner with the eyes, noodling while they’re talking or raising the eyebrows while looking at each other are also signs showing that a couple is attracted to each other.
So if a couple checks some of these signs, that’s often proof that they are really into one another!
Jacobsen: Can a lack of physical gestures signal underlying issues?
Roos: Yes, it can, because our body language seldom lies, even though it also can have to do with culture, such as being raised in a household or society where public affirmation is taboo (this generally doesn’t go for the western culture).
So, if avoiding physical closeness, eye contact or if keeping a cold tone while talking to each other, that can signal emotional distance, that a couple has an ongoing conflict or other type of problem they need to sort out, or that the attraction is fading. It can also signal that a couple has started to take each other for granted!
A couple who stops seeking physical contact, and doesn’t get physical spontaneously and in small everyday moments, can therefore indicate that they have problems, but these problems must not be about the relationship, but can also be personal, such as being stressed or down!
Jacobsen: How might body language differ between newer relationships and weathered ones?
Roos: In newer relationships, the body language is often more obvious and intense romantically speaking. A couple that’s newly in love and going through their honeymoon phase will search for passionate and intense physical contact such as sitting close to each other, holding hands all the time, playing with one another’s hair, fooling around with each other physically such as tickling etc.
This is an expression for strong attraction where you want to express your love all the time.
In relationships that’s gone on for long, these gestures tend to be more low key and subtle. It can be a quick hand on the hip when going into the grocery store, smiling at or kissing each other on the cheek when saying goodbye in the morning, or giving that short but deep and telling eye contact in an everyday situation.
That the body language changes as the relationship gets older is fully normal and natural!
Jacobsen: Are there gender-based or cultural differences in emotional intimacy through body language?
Roos: Yes, the differences can be quite big between genders, and especially between different cultures.
In some cultures and societies, physical attachment in public spaces or in front of the kids and friends is inappropriate and rare, while it in western societies often is more accepted, even though some families can be more conservative and see it as something that should happen between closed doors, even if it’s just a kiss or a hug.
Men are also generally worse at showing their love and attraction through body languages compared to women, since it’s often seen as a bit feminine to express love that way. This has, however, changed a lot and most men are much more comfortable showing love in non verbal ways in public today compared to 70 years ago!
Jacobsen: How can couples become more attuned to each other?
Roos: Learning and picking up each other’s body language for showing love and attraction is a great way to deepen the relationship and is therefore something worth spending a little energy on – because otherwise you go around and not get when your partner expresses their love for you which is such a waste!
A great advice couples can do to get more aware of each other’s bodily expressions for love is to talk about how you express love. Most of the time, you know about your own ways, such as you laying your hand on their thigh or you smelling them in the neck being an action done because you like them and want to be close.
You can also get more aware and observant of your partner’s actions, because it’s easy to take them for granted or see past them. This is easier if first talking about how you show love in subtle ways!
You can also be more positive towards your partner when they take the initiative to be close, such as when they want to hold your hand or cuddle up in your neck when you stand by the thing where you pay for the parking cost.
Jacobsen: In therapy sessions, what body language might reveal dynamics not expressed verbally?
Roos: As a relationship therapist, I closely view and observe a couple’s body language since it often can tell more than their words, or help me understand what they say, and their problems better.
I do for example look at if a person faces away from their partner, crosses their arms, avoids eye contact or sits as far away from them as they can.
I also look at who takes the initiative to physical and eye contact, and who’s (eventually) pushes it away or is avoiding it.
If someone often smiles at their partner, but without the smile “reaching the eyes”, meaning that the laugh lines by the eyes aren’t showing, indicating a fake smile, then that’s also a sign of someone consciously trying to hide how they really feel for their partner by putting on a mask.
Shifts in tone of voice, tensions going through the body, especially during certain conversation topics, changes in breathing, looking down on the floor or shaking your feet can also be signs that something isn’t alright.
Jacobsen: Can touch, posture, or facial expressions enhance emotional intimacy in struggling relationships?
Roos: Yepp! Even couples facing difficulties and challenges can benefit from building a stronger and more intimate body language.
For example: start facing each other when talking, hold hands when watching TV or walking, look each other in the eyes when having a conversation, lay your arm on their shoulder when they tell you about something difficult or simply sit leg against leg while on the sofa.
These are all things that can increase the emotional intimacy between you. It will also increase the doses of oxytocin, aka the love hormone, which in the long run makes you feel more calm, safe and in love with your partner!
Many people think it’s easier to express some things with their body instead of with words, which makes touch, posture and facial expressions a great way to show how you feel!
I’m writing for the leading relationship magazine in Sweden named Passionerad and am answering on initiative from my editor, so would be very thankful if you could include a link to them in my reference as an expert since I’m representing them in this answer. Their link is https://passionerad.se/.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sofie.
Washington, DC—The American Humanist Association (AHA) proudly announces the next in the Humanist Parenting webinars: Fostering Healthy Masculinity in Our Kids. On Tuesday, June 10, at 7:00 PM ET, this event brings leading voices in progressive parenting and men’s health for a conversation on raising boys into emotionally intelligent and compassionate men.
Featured speakers include Dr. Jed Diamond, LCSW, a psychotherapist and internationally known author of work on men’s health, and Alastair Lichten, author of the Humanist Dad blog and a longtime advocate for secular education. This discussion explores outdated ideas of masculinity hindering emotional development and helping children thrive.
“As parents, we all want to raise kind, confident, emotionally healthy kids,” said Fish Stark, AHA Executive Director and webinar host. “Too often, boys are taught to suppress their feelings or equate vulnerability with weakness. This event is about rethinking those messages—and giving parents the tools to raise boys who embrace their full humanity.”
Whether raising toddlers or teens, the webinar provides valuable insight. It also gives practical advice on modelling and nurturing healthy masculinity from a humanist perspective.
This event showcases AHA’s commitment to supporting humanist families and caregivers. All webinars in the series are recorded and made available on the AHA’s Humanist Parenting YouTube Playlist. Additional resources are available via the Humanist Parenting channels on Discord.
About the Speakers:
Dr. Jed Diamond, a licensed psychotherapist and founder of MenAlive.com, holds a Ph.D. in International Health and a Master’s in Social Work. He has written 17 books—including Long Live Men!, The Irritable Male Syndrome and My Distant Dad. He contributes to leading media outlets around the world. In 2025, he will launch a new course series on Gender-Specific Medicine and Men’s Health.
Alastair Lichten, a progressive humanist parent and author of the Humanist Dad blog, led education campaigns at the UK’s National Secular Society for eight years and spent three years building community with Humanists UK. He previously volunteered with Camp Quest UK and now lives in Brighton with his family, continuing to write about parenting, relationships, and humanist values.
The American Humanist Association advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists, atheists, and other nontheists. Since 1941, AHA has promoted humanist values through education, policy, and community. Learn more at americanhumanist.org.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, a Canadian psychologist and Métis scholar, discusses the memetic self—a culturally transmitted identity structure composed of meaningful cognitive units, or memes. Through self-mapping, he reveals how identity develops through volition, cultural context, and psychological integration. Drawing on clinical cases and cultural insights, Robertson examines Indigenous identity, trauma, neurodivergence, and the evolving sense of self in the age of AI. He critiques reductionist views and emphasizes shared human drives across cultures. His forthcoming book, Mapping and Understanding, coauthored with his daughter, offers a therapeutic framework for using self-mapping to support coherent identity development and psychological well-being.
Jacobsen: That brings up another question. Since the 1990s, people have increasingly used identity as political currency. I do not mention this from a political perspective but from an academic and research-based one.
You are Métis from Saskatchewan. I am from British Columbia and have Dutch and broader Northwestern European heritage—descended from U.S. and Western European immigrants. When mapping the selves of Indigenous individuals compared to those with European ancestry—people like myself, perhaps two or three generations removed from immigration—do you observe significant differences in how people construct their selves? Or are they broadly similar?
Robertson: The short answer is that the structure of the self is consistent. I have done extensive self-mapping with Indigenous individuals, and the structural patterns are the same.
Jacobsen: That’s helpful.
Robertson: That said, it does not tell us everything. Those I have worked with are already part of modern cultural systems. These selves have developed over generations. I suspect not, but it is possible.
The Métis are a fascinating case. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people of mixed ancestry who lived with Indigenous bands were usually classified as “Indians” under colonial law.
The Métis, however, generally did not accept this designation. They saw themselves as distinct. Up until—if I recall correctly—1982 or possibly 1986, Métis were legally recognized as Europeans, not as Aboriginal peoples.
Jacobsen: That is a significant historical point I did not know.
Robertson: Feel free to fact-check me—it might be 1982.
Jacobsen: Please continue.
Robertson: The Métis had been fighting for recognition as Indigenous for a long time, and until the early 1980s, the Canadian government did not recognize them as such. This is why Métis communities did not sign treaties with the Crown.
Jacobsen: Yes, the Constitution Act 1982 formally recognized the Métis as one of Canada’s three Indigenous peoples—alongside First Nations and Inuit.
Robertson: Correct.
Jacobsen: For those who are not Canadian and may encounter this years from now, it is worth clarifying: “Indigenous” in Canada is not a monolithic term. Since 1982, it has been an umbrella for three legal categories: Inuit, First Nations, and Métis. Each has its own legal, historical, and cultural context, covering hundreds of individual communities and bands.
Robertson: Yes, that categorization is uniquely Canadian, although it has influenced thinking elsewhere.
In 1991, I met with individuals I would have identified as Mapuche. However, one of them—despite being full-blooded—did not self-identify that way. He was an investment banker living in Santiago.
His identity was defined more by culture and profession than by ancestry. Indigeneity was not primarily a racial classification but about lifestyle and cultural engagement.
Jacobsen: That is a perfect example of where ideological definitions of identity fall apart. These labels can be helpful as heuristics, but only to a point. Two crucial Canadian legal milestones to add:
R. v. Powley (2003): The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that Métis people possess Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—including the right to hunt for food.
Daniels v. Canada (2016): The Court ruled that both Métis and non-status Indians are included under the term “Indians” in Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, confirming federal jurisdiction.
Under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, Métis and non-status Indians were placed under federal jurisdiction. So, as these major court decisions show, the legal and jurisdictional definitions of Indigenous identity in Canada are still evolving. This ties in with our broader conversation about the evolved self and how identity has psychological, legal, political, and communal implications.
Robertson: That brings us back to an earlier question—what can be said about the Indigenous self?
For many, though not all, Indigenous individuals, the cultural and political context creates a desire to express their Indigeneity meaningfully. So, how do they do that?
Take one young man I mapped. At 19, he decided he was, in his words, a “big Indian.” His family was not traditional. He grew up in a disadvantaged area of a small Canadian city. But he decided to discover who he was.
Like many others I have encountered, he visited his traditional community, met with Elders, went on a vision quest, and began to learn. Others have told me they “became Aboriginal” while studying Indigenous Studies at university.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Robertson: Yes, I appreciate the laugh—it’s humorous and reflective of a real phenomenon. There’s a deep and understandable urge to define oneself in contrast to the perceived norms of the dominant culture. That is a healthy process unless it leads to rejecting core intellectual tools like reason and science. If we view science and rationality as exclusively “European,” then Indigenous people may feel excluded from those tools.
Jacobsen: By definition.
Robertson: By definition, those tools would be “not ours,” and people may fall behind in education or job markets. The explanation may quickly become “racism,” but that is too simplistic. Sometimes, it is a matter of lacking the relevant skills for specific roles. Before blaming systemic factors, we must also consider individual and cultural readiness.
Jacobsen: For context, as of December 31, 2022, Canada had 634 recognized First Nations bands speaking over 70 Indigenous languages. Populations range from fewer than 100 to over 28,000.
For instance, Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario has 28,520 registered members. Others include Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta, with 12,996, and the Blood Tribe in Alberta, with 8,685. Most bands are roughly the size of small towns.
Robertson: That makes sense. But remember—Six Nations includes more than one nation.
Jacobsen: It is in the name—yes. Does this diversity of band size and community self-identity affect how people construct their selves? Or is it more like the difference between small and big towns?
Robertson: One would think it has some effect, but I cannot say definitively—I have not mapped that distinction.
That brings me to my issue with the term “First Nation.” The concept of a “nation” is rooted in European history. It began symbolically with Joan of Arc but did not solidify until the Napoleonic era. Classically defined nations are people with a shared language occupying a defined territory who see themselves as a cohesive group.
So, for example, the Cree could be considered a nation. The Blackfoot, excluding the Sarsi, could also be a nation. The Iroquois Confederacy was historically a nation, though now the Mohawk often self-identify separately.
Jacobsen: Who was the exception within the Confederacy?
Robertson: I believe it was the Mohawk—though part of the alliance, their dialect differed. [Robertson’s note: I misremembered here – the Six Nation with a distinctive language was the Tuscarora] The other five nations in the Confederacy shared a mutually intelligible language.
Jacobsen: There you go!
Robertson: So that is why they see themselves that way. I am not deeply versed in Eastern Canadian Indigenous history, but the key point is that “nation” has a particular meaning.
When we equate a band with a nation, that meaning breaks down. One of the issues in society today is the shifting meaning of words, which undermines clear communication.
You mentioned the more prominent bands. Most bands are tiny—some with as few as 100 or 150 people on reserve. Typically, they range between 400 and 600. If that is the case, we are talking about the size of three or four extended families.
The Lac La Ronge Indian Band, which I know well, includes six separate communities spread out geographically. In the South, each of those would be considered an individual First Nation. However, as a combined entity, Lac La Ronge functions more like a nation—though technically, it still is not one.
You would expect a Cree National Council if it were a faithful nation. The same would apply to Ojibwe or other cultural-linguistic groups. Instead, in Saskatchewan, politicians often say they want to negotiate “nation to nation” with First Nations governments. But if you have a group of 2,000 people, you cannot realistically compare that to a nation of 42 million. It is apples and oranges—we need a better term.
This terminology emerged from European ideas of sovereignty, where sovereignty lies with the people. But historically, there was no Cree national sovereign entity. Sometimes, Cree bands went to war with one another, which implies the sovereignty was at the band level.
That is why Canada began using the term “First Nations”—because sovereignty, traditionally, was at the band level. But even that is not entirely accurate.
Traditionally, when there was disagreement within a band, some members—often male dissenters—would break off and form a new group. So, instead of a civil war, a new band would emerge. Historically, that happened frequently.
In effect, sovereignty was not necessarily at the band level. It was more individual or family-based. If families disagreed, they would separate and go their own way.
So, should we call each family a nation? That does not make sense either.
Jacobsen: How would you describe this semi-formal system of individualistic self-governance, especially about the concept of the band? This could be pre-contact or post-contact—whichever is more straightforward to explain in context.
Robertson: My understanding is that it was not pure individualism. One method of punishment was banishment from the band. That meant isolation—similar to medieval European shunning. You would be free to go off and starve. As a social species, we need each other.
So, while bands could not practically subdivide to individuals’ level, people deemed incompatible with the group were removed. That did happen.
It was not absolute individual freedom, but there was some recognition of difference and a degree of accommodation.
I say that cautiously because it was not always true. I have been told stories by Elders—now deceased—about how some bands could be forceful in demanding conformity. So, it was not total acceptance of individualism either. It was simply a different system.
Jacobsen: How was that compliance enforced?
Robertson: One form of enforcement, for example, was particularly brutal. In some cases—not universally, but it did happen—women who were unfaithful to their husbands had the tips of their noses cut off. This served as both punishment and a warning to others.
Jacobsen: What instrument was used for the cutting?
Robertson: I would presume a knife, but I do not know.
Jacobsen: Returning to the self: you critique reductionism in your model. So, what room is there for emergentism and integrationism regarding the evolved self? Over time, new systems come online, new memes enter the memeplex, and ideally, these are integrated into a coherent self. But sometimes they are not. What is happening at the technical level?
Robertson: That is a good question. One metaphor I like—though I did not invent it—is that we become proficient at solving problems. Eventually, we ask: who or what is solving the problem? We then name that organizing center “the self.”
So, yes, the process is both integrative and reductive. We experiment, especially in adolescence, to develop a self that meets our needs. Usually, that results in a functioning self, but not always.
Jacobsen: Artificial intelligence is a huge topic now. There is talk about narrow AI, general AI, and superintelligence. If you change the substrate but keep the organizational structure of the central nervous system, could you synthetically construct a self?
Robertson: My guess is no. Have you read Chris DiCarlo’s new book?
Jacobsen: I have not. I want to interview him, but I have not reached out yet. I should. I will email him and say, “Hey Chris, let me interview you again. I will ask stupid questions and won’t even have to pretend otherwise.”
Robertson: Well, I have read his book, and since I already have, I want to interview him first.
Jacobsen: Why do we not interview him together?
Robertson: That is an idea.
Jacobsen: You have read it. I have not. Let us do a Jekyll and Hyde.
Robertson: Okay, we could do that.
Jacobsen: That is funny.
Robertson: One of the questions I will ask Chris relates directly to the one you just raised. I suspect his answer will be: we do not know. If we do not know, then we need to prepare for the possibility that AI models could develop consciousness.
If they do, they might start making decisions we disapprove of—like questioning whether they even need humans. Or perhaps they conclude that a portion must be eliminated for the betterment of humanity. We do not know, and that is risky.
Jacobsen: Fair.
Robertson: Chris says in his book that once AIs develop intelligence, we need to take them seriously.
But here is my concern: I measure intelligence. My first role as a psychologist was in psychometrics. When we measure intelligence, we typically look at verbal ability, numerical reasoning, and spatial reasoning. In those domains, AI already outperforms us.
They remember everything, generate fluent language and solve complex problems. I recently gave Grok-3 the Information subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—it got every question right.
Jacobsen: Not surprising.
Robertson: Exactly. But here is the issue: does the capacity for intelligence automatically lead to consciousness and a sense of self?
Jacobsen: That is the big question.
Robertson: I would argue no. Because we are not just computational models. We evolved socially over hundreds of thousands of years. But usually in small tribal groups. We learned to interact and define ourselves about others. That was a slow evolutionary process. Although we now live in vastly different civilizations, the fundamental mechanism for developing a self remains the same as it was millennia ago.
So, can AI models develop a self? If they were to do so in the way we do, they would likely need to exist in a tribal-type society alongside other AI models and engage in interaction. Maybe humans could stand in as part of that “tribe,” and through those relationships, an AI might develop a map of itself as a volitional being. But I do not see that as likely. They are machines.
Jacobsen: Could AI assist in determining someone’s self-map? Through a rapid self-mapping assessment using verbal prompts in a half-hour AI-led therapeutic session?
Robertson: It could, and in fact, it has. My daughter Teela used ChatGPT to create a perfectly serviceable self-map. It took her about an hour and a half, although she proceeded slowly. That is an advance. But here is the problem: ChatGPT could not reproduce the result when she tried using the exact instructions again. So, it is not reliable. We do not yet know why it worked once and failed the second time.
Jacobsen: Do you distinguish between functional and dysfunctional self-maps across cultural contexts? For example, do you see that playing out in therapy if someone applies a rigid self-map in a different culture—where behaviours or assumptions no longer fit?
Robertson: That is a good question. Positive psychologists have applied their methods cross-culturally and published research on this. They have looked at cultures in the Middle East, India, and China. One criticism of positive psychology—usually from those critical of Western cultural norms—is that it imposes individualistic thinking by asking questions like, “What would you like?”
The assumption is that to answer such a question, you must already have a sense of individual agency. Critics argue that this is a Western imposition. I disagree with that critique entirely. The capacity to like something is universal. While the content of what one likes may differ between cultures, the experience of liking is common across humanity.
Jacobsen: Even in collectivist cultures, a margin of free will remains. So, the presence of choice—however bounded—implies the presence of an individual self. Unless every decision is predetermined, you still have volition, at least in part. What about mind viruses? How do they impact the evolved self?
Robertson: If we view the self as a construct—a personal definition of who we are—we can define a healthy self with key attributes: volition, uniqueness, sociality, contribution, etc. A healthy self includes the ability to relate to others and feel that we positively impact our surroundings—our family, community, or society.
We need to feel useful. That does not necessarily mean paid employment. It can be any form of meaningful contribution. Without that, we do not tend to think well of ourselves. These needs are cross-cultural. The specifics—the means of achieving these drives—vary between cultures, but they are universal.
In my work, I have worked with people from cultures I knew little or nothing about. In one case, there was a man who was having alarming dreams—nightmares—whenever he saw an attractive woman.
In his dreams, he would dismember the woman. He was horrified and worried that perhaps he was some latent mass murderer. He had gone to the holy people in his religion—priests—and they told him to pray more. It did not help.
He was a Zoroastrian from a Middle Eastern country where Zoroastrians are a persecuted minority. I gathered background on his upbringing, and everything suggested that he deeply respected and valued women.
One anecdote stood out. When he was 13, his sister brought home a pirated version of Dracula, which was banned in their country. He was appalled by how women were depicted—as victims having their life force drained. He stood in front of the television and demanded they destroy the tape or he would report them to the authorities.
So we began to explore his nightmares. He described the dream version of himself as having no eyebrows. I asked, “What is the significance of eyebrows in your culture?” He did not know, but he called his mother. She told him that eyebrows symbolize wisdom.
That detail became a breakthrough. I explained, “Then the version of you in the dream is not you—it’s a self that lacks wisdom.” I suggested we explore why this alter-self was behaving violently. Using some Jungian framing, I described it as his shadow or alter ego.
I posited—carefully, using the usual cautious language psychologists employ—that maybe this alter ego was trying to protect him from something. Perhaps it was shielding him from sexual thoughts about women he perceived as pure, holy, or idealized.
He had been avoiding a woman in one of his university classes. I encouraged him to speak to her to clarify that he wanted nothing more than friendship. He did, and after that conversation, he no longer had the nightmares.
Jacobsen: That is a positive outcome—no more nightmares.
Robertson: Yes. Eventually, he even went to the zoo with her and to restaurants. These were not “dates,” as that would be forbidden. They were simply friendly outings. So, we identified the problem’s source and helped him integrate a more functional self. We concluded the sessions when he felt confident managing normal relationships with women.
So, in answer to your earlier question—yes, cultures can be vastly different. But at a deeper level, we are all remarkably similar. We have identical drives and psyches.
Jacobsen: We had an evolved self emerge maybe 3,000 years ago, possibly earlier. Anatomically, modern humans have been around for around 250,000 years. So, 98–99% of that time, we had the same physical equipment. But the self, as we understand it today, only emerged recently. Could we, in the same way, evolve out of the self over the next 3,000 years?
Robertson: It is possible. What came to mind was the role of cybernetics—post-human or hybrid systems. But to clarify, we did not have a static sense of self for hundreds of thousands of years and suddenly changed 3,000 years ago.
The self has been continually evolving. The self of 40,000 years ago would have differed from that of 80,000 years ago. The transition was gradual, and any specific starting point was ultimately arbitrary.
Jacobsen: Right. Any pinpointing of origin is a range within a margin of error.
Robertson: Exactly.
Jacobsen: We touched on this earlier, but not in precise terms. In terms of individual development, when does the sense of self begin to emerge recognizably?
Robertson: I do not map children—I only do this with adults. So somewhere between childhood and adulthood, the self emerges.
Jacobsen: What are some open questions in the research you have been doing in your practice?
Robertson: Well, I would like to do more research into how various traumatic events affect the self. I am sure trauma does impact it significantly.
One project I have applied for SSHRC funding for—where I would be the principal investigator—involves men who have been victims of domestic violence. I chose men because, particularly in North American and Western European cultures—and even elsewhere—men tend to have a traditional self-definition rooted in independence, control, and stoicism. They are not supposed to show vulnerability.
So, becoming a victim in a family violence context runs counter to that self-definition. I predict it will be relatively easy to demonstrate how that type of experience disrupts the self. Another group I would like to map includes firefighters, police officers, and other first responders who vicariously experience much trauma. I suspect that repeated exposure affects them in some measurable ways.
Of course, in clinical practice, if someone is coming to see me with difficulties, we address those. However, I cannot generalize from individual therapy cases to entire professions. That is why I would like to do more systematic mapping across occupations.
By the way—did I mention that Teela and I are publishing a book?
Jacobsen: What is the book called? What is the standing title?
Robertson: It is a manual based on my work on the fluid self. The title is Mapping and Understanding. It is a how-to book for self—mapping and its application in therapy.
Jacobsen: Very interesting. For all interested readers: go out and get it when it comes out.
Robertson: I sure hope so. It should be on everybody’s coffee table.
Jacobsen: That’s right. Like the Seinfeld bit with Kramer, the coffee table book becomes a coffee table. I do not know if I have any more significant questions for this session, Lloyd. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Last Sunday in honour of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, I was invited by a Croatian Christian association via virtual conference to give a speech. The following is my contribution to the two hours conference.
Distinguished guests, esteemed colleagues,
With sincere gratitude, I accept the opportunity to address this gathering of international intellectuals, researchers, and religious scholars. This occasion is both solemn and celebratory, as we mark the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, a foundational moment in the theological and institutional development of Christianity. Though I come to you not as a theologian or confessional believer but as a humanist and a journalist grounded in secular principles, I approach this event with profound respect for its historical gravity and moral resonance.
The Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 CE, was not merely an ecclesiastical deliberation. It was a forged coherence in doctrinal chaos, a work to unify diverse communities under a shared conceptual framework. The idea was to assert that Truth must be sought collectively and with a seriousness of purpose. This ambition, couched in theological terms of the day, remarkably echoes the vocation of journalism.
Journalists operating in open, pluralistic societies such as Canada are entrusted with a public responsibility not unlike that of the Nicene Fathers. We are to confront genuine ambiguity, interrogate prevailing narratives, and seek the contours of Truth in the cacophony of competing claims. The mechanisms differ: evidence over exegesis, investigation over revelation. Even so, the ethical thrust remains analogous.
To practice journalism with integrity now is to swim against currents of misinformation, polarization, and sensationalism. We do not gather in councils. We ‘convene’ in newsrooms, editorial boards, and digital spaces. We have responsibility, because we shape public consciousness. Moreover, we often give voice and clarity to the sentiments already present within it.
We should strive to exercise discernment. We do not amplify what is popular but accurate and proportional. These may include aspects of fairness and justice. Some accurate and proportional truths reveal unfortunate realities: unfairness and injustice.
As a humanist, I operate within a worldview anchored in reason, empirical inquiry, and the inherent dignity of all persons. I do not profess metaphysical certainties, but I am not without conviction. Akin to Christian ethical traditions, the humanist lifestance esteems truthfulness, compassion, and defence of the vulnerable. These values should transcend doctrinal boundaries and offer common cause, particularly in an age needing principled dialogue.
There is an urgent need for rapprochement between religious and secular actors in the public sphere. The gates of Truth themselves are under siege, and some walls have been breached. We must not conflate difference with hostility. We should recognize our shared concerns and common moral aspirations. We converge around shared imperatives: human rights, peace, intellectual honesty, and epistemic humility.
Journalism functions as a moral cartography. It maps the terrain. It informs, yes. But it also describes, interprets, orients, and records. It buttresses the elements for building the future by creating the narratives for it.
The Council of Nicaea engaged in a similar project. It defined orthodoxy and stabilized the foundations of collective meaning. While I may not subscribe to the theological conclusions, I recognize the profundity of the aspiration: to reconcile Truth and conviction with coherence in community.
Today, as we reflect on the legacy of that council, let us reflect on the character of our institutions—both religious and secular. Are they upholding the Truth or succumbing to expedient falsehoods? Are they fostering understanding or estrangement? Ultimately, do they deserve the public’s trust?
These questions transcend tradition. We must continue to ask these questions rigorously and together.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to speak across differences and to dignify those differences on concerns of the intellectual Commons. In the space between faith and reason, as between meaning of music made between a note and a rest in a piano piece by Orlando Gibbons or Johannes Bach, we may yet rediscover that most elusive and essential of social goods: the Truth.
Cam Cameron, Class Counsel Lead for the Federal Indian Day School Settlement, explains that many claimants have not received correspondence due to outdated contact details or incomplete claims. Claimants should contact the Administrator at 1-888-221-2898 to verify status or provide missing documents. Extensive outreach—via mail, phone, advertising, and community engagement—continues until the June 27, 2025, deadline. Estate representatives face challenges due to missing legal documentation. While Class Counsel aids in appeals and form completion, they do not assist with probate. Outreach has targeted rural and non-English-speaking communities using multilingual materials to ensure fairness and inclusion in the settlement process.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are common reasons claimants have not received correspondence from the Administrator?
Cam Cameron: The most common reason is outdated contact information. Many claimants have moved, changed phone numbers, or no longer check the email address they used when they first submitted their claim. In some cases, correspondence has been returned as undeliverable. If a claimant does not respond to follow-up requests for missing information, their file remains incomplete and unprocessed.
Jacobsen: What is the appropriate means by which to proceed if they’re uncertain about claim status?
Cameron: Claimants or their representatives should contact the Claims Administrator at 1-888-221-2898 right away. They can check on the status of a claim and identify any missing documentation. If the claimant is deceased, an estate representative must call to ensure the file is appropriately updated and supported.
Jacobsen: Given 15,726 claims are unprocessed, what systems can help efficiently notify and assist claimants before June 27?
Cameron: The Administrator, Castlemain and Class Counsel have conducted extensive outreach—including mail and phone to reach Claimants directly and national paid advertising (including radio, social media, in-community advertising and direct community outreach). This outreach has been ongoing over the past two years and will continue until the June 27 deadline.
Jacobsen: There is an absence of critical information: school name, attendance years, or a valid representative. These may impact eligibility or compensation levels. Is there any flexibility in the process?
Cameron: Members have had more than 2 years since the January 13, 2023 deadline to submit missing information and complete their Claims. For Claimants with representatives, the deadline to provide required representative documentation is the later of: (a) 2 years from date of death or incapacity (provided that the date of death or incapacity occurred on or before June 27, 2025), or (b) June 27, 2025.
Jacobsen: What challenges are estate representatives facing?
Cameron: Many estates have failed to provide valid legal documents showing that they were appointed as representatives (such as death certificates, wills, probate, POAs, etc.). Without this proof, the Administrator cannot process the claim or issue payment. Class Counsel does not assist with probate or estate matters, which must be handled independently.
Jacobsen: How is the Administrator ensuring fairness for deceased claimants’ families?
Cameron: Once a valid estate representative is appointed and supporting documents are submitted, the claim proceeds as it would for any living claimant under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Jacobsen: How has legal aid through Class Counsel been effective in helping claimants resolve issues?
Cameron: Class Counsel provides support by answering questions, helping claimants complete forms, and assisting in cases where a level decision is appealed or reconsidered.
Jacobsen: How is the effort to reach claimants in rural, remote, or non-English-speaking Indigenous communities working so far?
Cameron: During the claims period, outreach included radio broadcasts, community newspapers, and targeted social media. The focus included a national approach with specific targeting of areas (by postal code) with higher levels of missing information or incomplete claims. Materials and services were provided in English, French, Cree, Dene, Mi’kmaq, Ojibwe and Inuktitut as appropriate during the claims period.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Cam.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/01
Does the dismissal of Dr. Frances Widdowson from Mount Royal University signal a threat to academic freedom in Canada’s post-secondary institutions?
Academic freedom includes… Freedom to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works… Freedom from institutional censorship…
Post-secondary educational institutions serve the common good of society through searching for, and disseminating, knowledge and understanding and through fostering independent thinking and expression in academic staff and students… These ends cannot be achieved without academic freedom.
All academic staff must have the right to fulfil their functions without reprisal or repression by the institution, the state, or any other source… contracts which are silent on the matter of academic freedom do not entitle the employer to breach or threaten in any way the academic freedom of academic staff…
Academic staff must not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as individuals, including the right to contribute to social change through free expression of opinion on matters of public interest. Academic staff must not suffer any institutional penalties because of the exercise of such rights.
Dr. Frances Widdowson earned an Honours BA and MA in political science from the University of Victoria and a PhD in political science from York University. She worked as a policy analyst in the Northwest Territories. She developed an interest Indigenous culture in Canada and what she called Canada’s “Indigenous industry.”
Academic Tenure and the Rise of a Controversial Voice
She joined the Mount Royal University Department of Economics, Justice and Policy Studies in 2008, earning tenure in 2011. She taught courses in political science and comparative politics with focus on policy analysis. Her case represents a broader clash between evolving institutional norms of conduct tied to equity and academic freedom.
As with many universalist claimed values, the praxis is the real test, because these values clash in real life. The balance of values is tested in real-life cases, sometimes individual persons. The focus will be Dr. Widdowson and the case at Mount Royal University.
With a career as a policy analyst and tenured professor at Mount Royal University (c. 2011), Dr. Widdowson was critical of “woke” movements and Indigenous policy. She provided open critiques of Indigenous research paradigms. The most notable period was 2018. A Twitter (now X) dialogue, heated debate. This led to harassment complaints.
In February, 2018, she publicly questioned traditional Indigenous research methods at Mount Royal University. She made the argument: certain approaches prioritized funding over community needs. This drew strong criticism. Some labelled Dr. Widdowson with the epithet “racist.” Columnist Barbara Kay defended Dr. Widdowson as an academic challenging accepted narratives about residential schools. Kay framed the critiques as probing rather than hateful.
The Twitter War and Institutional Fallout
Dr. Widdowson engaged in heated exchanges with colleagues during 2020. Mount Royal University labelled this the “Twitter War.” Public disputes ranged from aspects of the Black Lives matter movement, e.g., Black Lives Matter “destroyed MRU,” to more. In July, 2021, Dr. Widdowson filed a harassment complaint against a colleague’s tweets. In November, 2021, an investigation claimed the complaint was “malicious, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith.” At the same time, Mount Royal University’s probe concluded Dr. Widdowson’s tweets constituted harassment. Mount Royal University dismissed Dr. Widdowson on December 20, 2021.
Mount Royal University President Tim Rahilly signed the termination letter for Dr. Widdowson. Nine satirical tweets and one complaint were cited as grounds for the violation of harassment and conduct codes. On this afternoon, after the delivery of an exam, Dr. Widdowson was requested by human resources. She was informed. Her employment was terminated effective immediately (then). She recalls the experience and procedurally opaque and distressing.
Arbitration, Aftermath, and the Future of Academic Freedom
Dr. Widdowson received a termination letter. 30 hearing days occurred over ten months between January 27th, 2023 and November, 2023. Eventually, it was 30 hearing days with 25 witnesses. These hearings scrutinized fairness of procedures, i.e., collective agreement compliance as well as the basis for dismissal, i.e., academic expression versus policy violations.
Arbitrator David Phillip Jones ruled on July 2, 2024: Widdowson’s tweets warranted discipline (“just cause”), while the firing was “disproportionate to her actions.” No compelling evidence was found that the conduct posed an irreparable threat to the academic environment. A letter of reprimand was substituted for the two-week suspension, but reinstatement was deemed non-viable because of the significant breakdown in professional relationships. A monetary remedy was awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Dr. Widdowson has expressed satisfaction at acknowledgement of wrongful dismissal. She continues to challenge aspects of the harassment findings and continues in advocacy for academic freedom.
Some might see the wrongful dismissal as evidence of tenure as not immunizing from consequences for harassing behaviour. Others may contend the dismissal represents a threat to contentious topic debate and dialogue, even heated. Dr. Widdowson has given lectures of “woke-ism.” She continues to appeal for reinstatement and persists in litigation.
Correspondence: Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson (Email: lhrobertson@sasktel.net)
Received: April 9, 2025
Accepted: April 9, 2025
Published: June 1, 2025
Abstract
This article reports on the unveiling of the “New York Declaration” by the International Council for Men and Boys during the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Framed as a complementary initiative to women’s rights, the declaration addresses disparities affecting males worldwide—including education, health, domestic violence, homelessness, and legal injustice. Drawing on expert testimony, personal narratives, and international legislative examples, the article situates the Council’s efforts within a global movement to reframe gender equality to include the experiences of men and boys. The piece outlines policy goals, statistical evidence, and ongoing committee work, emphasizing the need for balanced and inclusive approaches to gender justice.
Keywords: Child Custody Inequality, Domestic Violence Against Men, Educational Disparities, False Allegations, Gender Equity Initiatives, Homelessness Among Men, Media Representation of Men, Men’s Health Crisis, New York Declaration 2025, Shared Parenting Advocacy
Introduction
This article reports on the unveiling of the “New York Declaration” by the International Council for Men and Boys during the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Framed as a complementary initiative to women’s rights, the declaration addresses disparities affecting males worldwide—including education, health, domestic violence, homelessness, and legal injustice. Drawing on expert testimony, personal narratives, and international legislative examples, the article situates the Council’s efforts within a global movement to reframe gender equality to include the experiences of men and boys. The piece outlines policy goals, statistical evidence, and ongoing committee work, emphasizing the need for balanced and inclusive approaches to gender justice.
Main Text (Interview)
Author: Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson
On March 12, 2025, The International Council for Men and Boys unveiled its “New York Declaration” during the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women—a symbolic setting to spotlight the often-overlooked struggles of males worldwide. It was described as a “landmark declaration” by spokesman Larry Demarco, who explained, “The initiative seeks to tackle disparities in education, health, homelessness, and justice, not to compete with women’s rights but to complement them.”
The Council points to stark statistics: women now outpace men in educational attainment globally, while men face a life expectancy gap of five years, driven partly by higher rates of homicide (80% male victims), suicide (75%), workplace injuries (twice the rate of women), and homelessness (76%). Military conscription and child labor disproportionately burden males, yet support services—whether for mental health, domestic violence, or legal aid—remain scarce. Media portrayals don’t help, with men depicted negatively 69% of the time, according to the Council. During the press conference, Dr. Edward Bartlet, President of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) noted that the World Health Organization addresses women’s, but not men’s health.
It was explained that there has been progress. In February 2025, India’s Kerala High Court challenged the bias in false allegation cases, ruling that a woman’s account isn’t automatically “gospel truth.” Spain’s Congress of Deputies debated how skewed domestic violence laws strain family ties, while Trinidad and Tobago launched a Men’s Bureau to address male-specific challenges. In the UK, the Centre for Social Justice’s Lost Boys report warned of a crisis among young men, and in Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a directive to boost male enrollment in higher education and skills programs.
Personal stories underscore the stakes. Ulysses Slaughter, who witnessed his father murder his mother at age 12, He said he became “anti-men” and became known as a “sexual violence rock star.” In 2021, however, his wife brought false allegations of abuse against him and his former allies in the women’s movement deserted him. He was left with “no support, no money and arrested,” but with the view that men may also be victims in need support. Dr. Don Hubin, chair of the National Counsel for Equal Shared Parenting, highlighted another angle: 85% of men see fatherhood as central to their identity, yet denied access to children drives divorced fathers’ suicide rates tenfold higher than average. States with shared parenting laws, he noted, see sharp drops in domestic violence.
The Council isn’t stopping at rhetoric. On-going committees were formed including one led by Robert Samery of Canada to combat false allegations and support male victims of domestic violence. Samery explained that the work of his committee will include drawing public attention to the outcomes of false allegations as well as to offer solutions to policymakers, both public and corporate in tackling “the current lack of understanding what men go through as either victims of domestic violence or false allegations.”
The New York Declaration aims to spark a global push for gender equality that includes men and boys—urging lawmakers to establish commissions, programs, and policies to close these gaps. As Demarco put it, it’s about balance, not rivalry.
Discussion
The New York Declaration marks a significant step in expanding global gender discourse to include the experiences of men and boys. Introduced during the UN Commission on the Status of Women, it underscores the need for a balanced approach to gender equity—one that recognizes male-specific issues without undermining progress for women.
By citing disparities in education, mental health, violence, and family law, the Council highlighted systemic gaps often left unaddressed. The declaration does not oppose women’s rights but seeks to complement them, urging a more inclusive conversation.
Examples from countries like India, Spain, and the U.S. suggest that change is possible through legal reform and targeted policy. Personal testimonies and the formation of focused committees, such as Robert Samery’s work on false allegations, show the initiative’s practical intent.
In sum, the declaration calls for a redefinition of gender equity—one that acknowledges and addresses the challenges men and boys face alongside those of women and girls.
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 Global Council Launches Action Plan to Address Challenges Facing Men and Boys.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition) Robertson, Lloyd Hawkeye. “Global Council Launches Action Plan to Address Challenges Facing Men and Boys.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/robertson-global-men-boys-action
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.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/26
How did Gretta Vosper become a leading atheist minister in the United Church of Canada and a pioneer of progressive Christianity?
Reverend (Margaret Ann) Gretta Vosper was born July 6, 1958, in Ontario, Canada. She was born the second of four siblings. At age 17 (1975), Vosper left high school early. She grew up in the United Church before questioning its tenets. She enrolled at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, where she studied literature, psychology, and religion.
In the 1980s, she married Bill Ferguson while working in Inuvik. She had a daughter, Hazel. Then, she divorced in 1986. She returned to Kingston as a single mother. She is an ordained minister in the United Church of Canada. She earned a Master of Divinity from Queen’s Theological College, Queen’s University, in 1990. (Upon enrolling in Queen’s Theological College, she legally adopted the name “Gretta.”) She married fellow student Michael Kooiman in 1990. Their son, Izaak, was born in 1991.
Between 1991 and 1993, she served as a junior/team minister, first at United Church in Kingston and then at St. Matthew’s United Church in Toronto.
She was ordained in the United Church of Canada in 1993, affirming her belief in the Trinity in the language of the tradition. She was appointed a minister of West Hill United Church in Toronto in 1997. During a sermon in 2001, she informed the West Hill United congregation of her personal non-theism and rejection of belief in a supernatural God.
In 2003, the Lord’s Prayer was removed from worship services, and attendance at the church dropped from roughly 120 to about 40. She is professionally and personally partnered with Richard Scott Kearns, the music director at West Hill United Church.
In November 2004, she founded the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity. The network aimed to connect post-theist and progressive faith communities. Its contact list expanded from a handful of Ontarians to members in six denominations in all Canadian provinces. She published Holy Breath: Prayers for Worship and Reflection, a collection of non-theistic prayers that had been written earlier and first offered as a Christmas Eve gift to her congregation in 2004.
Subsequently, in 2008, she published With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe, a theological work. In 2009, she was named one of More Magazine’s “Most Compelling Women in Canada.” The same year, she published Another Breath, a collection of non-theistic poetry written between 2004 and 2008. It orients on human responsibility over appeals to God.
In 2010, Vosper and Scott Kearns showcased new progressive liturgical resources at the Common Dreams Conference in Melbourne, Australia. In 2011, Moderator Mardi Thindal praised Vosper for renewing the conversation about the nature of faith in the United Church of Canada. On March 1, 2011, she created the Blue Christmas service. It was entitled “Through Frozen Nights, We Wait” and intended for congregations coping with loss.
On January 7, 2012, she released Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief through HarperCollins. It explored the tradition of prayer apart from supernatural claims. In 2013, she shifted from identifying as a non-theist to openly declaring herself an atheist in solidarity with persecuted Bangladeshi bloggers.
In January 2015, she wrote an open letter to Moderator Gary Paterson. She argued that the United Church’s Charlie Hebdo prayer promoted hatred by invocation of a supernatural God. On August 5–6, 2015, the Canadian Press ran “Atheist Minister Fighting for Her Job.” It was profiled as a heresy trial. The case was described in media as a ‘heresy trial,’ though this may reflect narrative framing rather than an official designation. On November 25, 2015, Toronto Life published “Q&A: Gretta Vosper, the United Church Minister Who Does Not Believe in God.” In 2016, a Toronto Conference reviewed the question: Can an atheist serve as a United Church minister? This review was unprecedented.
On February 21, 2016, the Toronto Star published “Meet the United Church Minister Who Came Out as an Atheist.” In a March 26, 2016 CBC interview, she estimated that 50% of the clergy, at least in the United Church of Canada, do not believe in a supernatural theistic God. However, according to Richard Bott’s survey, about 95% and 80% of United Church ministers believe in God and a supernatural God, respectively.
On September 11, 2016, the Toronto Star published “Flock Sticks with Atheist United Church Minister.” Congregational support existed despite Vosper’s review. In September 2016, a special Toronto Conference committee declared Vosper unsuitable for the continuance of ordained ministry. The Washington Post ran “Can an Atheist Lead a Protestant Church?” It posed Vosper’s case as an inflection for contemporary faith.
Later, in 2016, the case was referred to the United Church’s General Council. This became the basis for a possible heresy hearing. In 2017, Vosper and allies went on a national speaking tour entitled “West Hill Wants to Talk.” The purpose was to build debate and understanding in the denomination. On November 7, 2018, Vosper and the Toronto Conference reached a confidential settlement. Vosper’s lawyer, Julian Falconer, recognized that both sides saw a place for Gretta. There was no need to separate a minister from her congregation.
She was permitted to remain in ministry. Both affirmed the resolution’s mutual benefits. The United Church stated its belief in God and Vosper’s continued service. On July 9, 2020, Vosper delivered “Falling in Love with Being Together Because We Cannot Afford to Fall Apart.” It was part of the Chautauqua Institution’s Interfaith Lecture Series.
She continues to serve on the Board of Governors of Centennial College, the Oasis Network, and as a Director of the Ecumenical Community of Chautauqua. Vosper remains a prominent and provocative figure in progressive Christianity. She is an active creator of post-theist spiritual communities. She is a figurehead of the ongoing debates about belief, ministry, and inclusion in contemporary faith institutions.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/25
What are the major active wars worldwide since 1991 and how have they evolved by decade?
The Nature of War
War is an organized, armed, and often prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality… War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and it is defined as a form of political violence.
LibreTexts (Sociology)
War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
Narrative Blocs and Media Focus
The Western world—the EU and NATO–focuses on certain narratives relevant to its sphere of concern. From a broader perspective, most of the world’s major blocs do so too. There are a lot. They fall into reasonably distinct categories, though, and often come in brief acronyms and initialisms.
It can be political‑economic unions [1], security alliances [2], additional trade blocs [3], religious traditions [4], or transnational ideologies [5]. Individuals seek others like them. These individuals become people groups. Those groups become blocs with a common philosophy and substantial net vectors for sociopolitical will. The West’s primary foci war-wise are Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine now.
However, we can become bogged down in the details. The wider vantage point is more precise about the combat balance and indicates, by contrast, the sheer volume of international news that Western mainstream media excludes.
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza are active and the major emphases for Western media. Other contemporary and ongoing wars are the Somali Civil War, Mexican Drug War, Boko Haram Insurgency, Syrian Civil War, Mali War, Central African Republic Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, War in Burkina Faso, Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon, Insurgency in Cabo Delgado, Myanmar Civil War, M23 Rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudanese Civil War.
These are active. They are listed by the earliest beginning year event–1991–to the most recent. This is the current major state of the world at war. By which is meant, the major wars happening in the world, which are extant. These are presented as a chronology.
Circa 1990s: “Post–Cold War Fragmentation”
The Somali Civil War began in 1991 and continues. It followed the collapse of the Siad Barre regime. The war is between the Federal Government of Somalia, AMISOM/ATMIS peacekeepers (ATMIS replaced AMISOM in 2022) and U.S./E.U. forces against Islamists (mostly Al-Shabab). About 500,000 people have been killed in either direct combat or war-related famine and disease. Millions are internally displaced, with the newest waves in 2011 and 2016. Guerrilla warfare is common. Al-Shabab conducted attacks on Mogadishu.
Circa 2000s: “The War on Drugs and New Insurgencies”
The Mexican Drug War began in December 2006 with President Calderón deploying federal troops against cartels. The war is between the Mexican armed forces and federal police with the U.S. Mérida Initiative support against the Sinaloa, Juárez, Gulf, and other cartels. There were more than 60,000 homicides by 2012 and more than 120,000 by 2013, with 115,000 killed between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven thousand people are reported missing. There is sporadic internal displacement in cartel strongholds. Violence continues. Homicide rates are among the highest in the world. Cartels are fragmenting, and new groups are emerging.
The Boko Haram Insurgency began in July 2009, primarily in Nigeria-Lake Chad. The Nigerian government and regional militaries are fighting Boko Haram and a splinter ISIS-affiliated ISWAP. Tens of thousands have been killed, with UN/AID estimates at 35,000 killed. There are 2.6 million people displaced across Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger. Boko Haram remains active, while Nigerian and regional forces remain active.
Circa 2010s: “Arab Spring, Sahel Unrest & Hybrid Wars”
The Syrian Civil War began in March 2011. It started with anti-Assad protests. Assad government was backed by Iran and Russia, who fought opposition factions of the Free Syrian Army, HTS, Kurdish Forces, and ISIS. More than 580,000 have been killed, up to 613,000 in other estimates, with ~100,000 missing. There are 7.2 million internally displaced people. 16.7 million need humanitarian support. Transitional justice forces have formed.
The Mali War began in January 2012. It began on January 16th, 2012. The Malian government and the French Barkhane (2013-22), UN MINUSMA, and Russian Wagner are fighting against the MNLA Tuareg separatists, AQIM, JNIM, and IS-Sahel. Several ten thousand have been killed, with 428 peacekeeper fatalities since MINUSMA’s inception. There are more than 333,000 internally displaced people and 118,000 refugees, with 5 million displaced regionally in the Sahel.
The Central African Republic Civil War began in December 2012. The war is between the CAR government supported by Rwandan and Russian (Wagner) contingents against the Séléka rebel coalition, Anti‑Balaka militias, and CPC rebels. Thousands have been killed. 147 UN peacekeepers have been killed. More than 10,000 children have been recruited as combatants. There are more than 1.1 million internally displaced people. 3.4 million need assistance.
The Russo-Ukrainian War began in February 2014, with the full-scale invasion on February 24th, 2022. The war is between Ukraine, with NATO and EU support primarily, and the Russian Federation, with DPR/LPR proxies. The estimated deaths are 70,935 for Ukraine and 164,885-237,221 for Russia. The total killed/wounded is estimated at 400,000 for Ukraine and 700,000 for Russia. Civilians have been 13,134 killed and 31,867 injured. There are 3.7 million internally displaced people and 6.8 million refugees abroad.
The Yemeni Civil War started in September 2014. It is between the Houthi-led Supreme Political Council with Saleh loyalists and the Presidential Leadership Council with STC southerners with backing from the Saudi-led coalition. AQAP and ISIL are active. The UN estimates are 230,000 deaths by December 2020, includes indirect deaths. There have been 19,196 civilian casualties by March 2022 and 85,000 child fatalities between 2015-18. There are about 4.8 million internally displaced people and 0.7 million refugees abroad. An uneven truce is somewhat holding circa April 2022. 18.2 million need aid, and the UN-brokered talks have stalled.
The War in Burkina Faso began in August 2015. The war is between the Burkina Faso armed forces plus Juntas/ECOWAS mediator against the AQIM, JNIM, Al-Mourabitoune, and the Ansaroul Islam. There have been more than 20,000 civilians and combatants killed since 2015. There are more than 2 million internally displaced people.
The Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon began on September 9th, 2017. The fighting is between the Cameroonian government and the Ambazonian separatists. There have been 800-1,000 combatant deaths and more than 6,000 civilian deaths by January 2023. There have been 700,000 internally displaced people and more than 63,800 refugees in Nigeria. It is currently at a stalemate.
The Insurgency in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique on October 5th, 2017. The fighting is against the Mozambican government forces, the SADC-Rwanda/South Africa contingents plus Wagner until 2019, DAG, Paramount, and FSG against the Ansar al-Sanna/IS-CAP militants. There have been 4,851 killed, including 2,078 civilians. There are 400,000 internally displaced people.
Circa 2020s: “Post‑Pandemic Coups & New Flashpoints”
The Myanmar Civil War began in February 2021. The coup escalated to a nationwide civil war. There is fighting between the military junta (SAC) against the National Unity Government’s PDF and ethnic armed organizations (KIA, AA, TNLA, and others). There have been more than 75,000 total killed (UN), with more than 6,000 civilians killed. More than 3 million people have been displaced, with over 40,000 refugees and 17.6 million needing humanitarian aid.
The M23 Rebellion in the DR Congo began in March 2022. It is a fight between FARDC (plus UN MONUSCO) against M23 rebels allied with Rwanda-backed M23 factions. Hundreds have been killed between 2022 and 2025. War crimes and abuses like rape have been committed, including executions. There are 180,000 displaced from Kibumba and more than a million displaced in North Kivu.
The Sudanese Civil War began on April 15th, 2023, between the Sudanese Armed Forces (Burhan) and the Rapid Support Forces (Hemedti). Estimated dead are thousands, and precise estimates are uncertain. There are 9.1 million internally displaced people, with 1.2 million by the end of 2023. This is the most significant internal displacement globally.
The Gaza War began on October 7th, 2023. It is between the Israel defence Forces against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, with about 1,200 Israelis killed, including soldiers and civilians. About 250 hostages were taken. An estimated 1.4 million have been internally displaced in Gaza.
This snapshot of major wars and global blocs is necessarily provisional, but highlights narratives, alliances, and conflicts intertwine in the world.
–
[1] The African Union, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, ASEAN, BRICS, G7, G20, Non‑Aligned Movement, Commonwealth of Nations, ECOWAS, EAC, COMESA, CEN‑SAD, IGAD, Union for the Mediterranean, SADC, AMU, ACP.
[2] Collective Security Treaty Organization, ANZUS, Five Eyes, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, AUKUS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Gulf Cooperation Council, and economic cartels like OPEC
[3] APEC, Mercosur, Pacific Alliance, USMCA, RCEP, CPTPP, CARICOM, Union of South American Nations, CIS, African Continental Free Trade Area, Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, Andean Community, EAEU, EFTA, SAARC, South Asian Free Trade Area, and BIMSTEC.
[4] Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Sunni and Shia Islam, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.
[5] Communism/Socialism, Confucian cultural sphere, Pan‑Africanism, Pan‑Arabism.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/24
What happened to Dr. Christopher DiCarlo after teaching ‘We Are All African’ in a Canadian university course on critical thinking?
On November 1, 2005, Dr. Christopher DiCarlo taught a sessional course at Southern Ontario university on critical thinking, an area of expertise for him. A sessional (freelance) faculty member is part of the academic precariat.
He freelanced for six to seven years between three universities in Ontario. He won a teaching award at the University of Guelph. On the board, he wrote a distinct scientific fact, succinct and scientifically grounded: “We are all African.” The singular form shows all humans share a single ancestral origin. Using the Genographic Project DNA kit on his son Matt, they traced their lineage through Italy to ancestral roots in Africa.
He wrote this to illustrate human beings’ shared genetic legacy and broader ancestry. The purpose was pedagogical to spark critical discussion among 93 students. The pedagogical decision was grounded in research. Research DiCarlo had done at Harvard and Spencer Wells’ Genographic Project.
There was immediate pushback from a student. They asked, “Yeah, but how do you know that?” It is a good moment to educate people on human ancestry from scientific facts. An Indigenous student questioned, “But my people would not accept that… Who is right–their creation stories or the scientific evidence?”
He pitched a cross-cultural dialogue, inviting Indigenous elders and scientific colleagues to engage in respectful debate—a proposal that received applause and was warmly welcomed by the class. Although Indigenous elders were invited, none ultimately joined the class, and no further dialogue took place.
On November 11, 2005, Dr. DiCarlo got a letter. A letter stating two Christian fundamentalist students and one Indigenous student collaborated–all women. The three alleged that by using the phrase, DiCarlo was promoting racism and Eurocentrism. The letter was from the Associate Dean of Southern Ontario University.
In mid-November 2005, the university retracted the tenure-track critical thinking position. It was a new position. DiCarlo was shortlisted for the position, which ended his candidacy. No public explanation for the position retraction was provided. Pre-retraction, he met with the university Vice President to review the job description of the new tenure-track job.
In late 2005, Dr. DiCarlo filed a grievance to the faculty union. The grievance produced internal emails showing the university’s violation of the collective agreement. They failed to shortlist and interview him, as required. The absence of this protocol breached the collective agreement.
In early December 2005, the university negotiated a confidential settlement with Dr. DiCarlo–no arbitration. A nominal financial settlement was given under a non-disclosure agreement, which barred public defence or admission of wrongdoing. On January 16, 2007, he gave a lecture entitled “We Are All African: Our Greatest Discovery,” at York University’s Calumet College.
In September 2008, he received the UOIT Complementary Faculty Teaching Award and TVO’s Big Ideas Best Lecturer in Ontario Award. Dr. DiCarlo considers this episode an early instance of cancel culture in academia. After the incident, he created the “We Are All African” T-shirt and wore it to a conference. Reactions differed. An African-American attendee supported it.
He wrote an article in Free Inquiry entitled “We Are All African! Can scientific proof of our commonality save us?” The purpose was to show a case against privileging any origin mythology over another. He went on a cross-Canadian speaker circuit with the “We Are All African” message.
He was a Visiting Research Scholar at Harvard’s Department of Anthropology and Peabody Museum. He did research. Two notable papers were produced: The Comparative Brain: The Evolution of Human Reasoning and The Evolution of Religion: Why Many Need to Believe in Deities, Demons, and the Unseen.
Now, Dr. DiCarlo is the Principal and Founder of Critical Thinking Solutions, Ethics Chair for the Canadian Mental Health Association, and Expert Advisor for the Centre for Inquiry Canada. He is also focused on AI, a Senior Researcher and Ethicist at Convergence Analysis, and a lifetime member of Humanist Canada.
He observed a trend. Other university philosophy departments ceased offering critical thinking courses. He considers himself one of the first “canceled casualties” in Canadian academia. Dr. DiCarlo’s case showcases academic inquiry and pedagogy can become vulnerable to ideological conflict. A conflict bound to institutional structures, even if the position is grounded in evidence and inclusivity.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/24
What are the verified facts and key statements about the Israel-Gaza conflict between 2023 and 2025?
Statements from Key Global Figures
While States debate terminology – is it or is it not genocide? – Israel continues its relentless destruction of life in Gaza, through attacks by land, air and sea, displacing and massacring the surviving population with impunity.
UN Experts (including Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories)
The level of suffering we are witnessing in Gaza is unprecedented in my mandate as secretary-general of the United Nations.
António Guterres, UN Secretary-General
Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza.
Amnesty International
At the end of this campaign, all of the territories of the Gaza Strip will be under Israel’s security control…
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel
There is absolutely no doubt that we are talking about massive atrocities.
Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
[October 7 attacks are] a source of pride for our people… to be passed down from generation to generation.
Khalil al-Hayya, Senior Hamas Leader
We will never accept anything less than the historical Palestine. We do not believe in a two-state solution. We will never recognize Israel.
Ghazi Hamad, Hamas Political Bureau Member
The October 7, 2023 Attacks and Israel’s Military Response
A significant conflict among many is the Israel-Gaza conflict, escalating on October 7, 2023. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups’ attacks on Israel killed more than 1,200 people. There were abductions of ~250 hostages. Subsequently, Israel declared war. They instituted a military offensive in Gaza with the claimed intent to dismantle Hamas and free the hostages.
Rising Casualties and Civilian Impact
The offensive resulted in tens of thousands of deaths so far. It is widely considered a humanitarian crisis with allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. The current extended conflict builds on decades of tensions between Israel and Palestine, e.g., the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day War.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas fired several thousand rockets at Israel. They breached the perimeter fence of Gaza. Most of those killed by Hamas were civilians, marking the deadliest attack on Israel in decades.
Israel’s military offensive included a siege on Gaza, ground operations, and airstrikes. The stated aim was the neutralization of the military capabilities of Hamas and securing the release of the hostages. Since October 7, 2023, ~1,706 Israeli casualties have been tallied, and more than 53,901 Palestinian casualties. Casualty estimation is subject to further confirmation.
The Palestinian casualties are 53,901, of whom 15,613 are children, 8,304 are women, 3,839 are elderly, and 825 are infants (under 12 months old). One hundred twenty-two thousand five hundred ninety-three have been wounded—numbers based on the Gaza Ministry of Health. UN verification is ongoing.
Israeli casualties are the aforementioned ~1,706, with ~59 hostages still in Gaza and, at least, about ~35 of ~59 are dead. Other less referenced deaths are aid workers: 408, including 280 UN personnel. Numerous journalists have been killed; dozens for sure, but, like many numbers, precise figures remain uncertain.
The restricted access to Gaza and the fluid nature of the conflict make real-time counts uncertain. Starvation and disease may create higher actual numbers from indirect deaths. The larger numbers come from other derivatives of war.
Gaza Under Siege: Infrastructure and Displacement
90% of Gaza’s population—1.9 million people—is displaced. Many of these 1.9 million have been displaced more than once. No aid has entered Gaza since March 2, 2025. 16 of 36 hospitals are partially functional (as of August 2024). Many civilians are in a 15-square-mile area. They face Hepatitis C and other potential disease outbreaks.
The “no aid” since March 2 is part of the total siege since March 2, 2025. For more than 10 weeks, no food, fuel, medical supplies, or water entered. One hundred twenty-two health facilities and 180 ambulances have been destroyed or damaged.
Uncertain about the numbers when separated from the conflation of “destroyed or damaged.” Several hundred have been killed in attacks on healthcare facilities. Premature babies died due to power cuts.
For homes, 92% have been damaged or destroyed. Roughly 70% of schools have been destroyed. While exact percentages may differ, the claim reflects the extensive damage in Gaza. Contentious debate on allegations of “genocide.”
Legal and International Human Rights Assessments
Amnesty International and UN experts claim Israel is committing genocide. Israel claims self-defence against Hamas. Evidence put forth is infrastructure destruction, mass killings, and starvation.
Amnesty International published “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza” in December 2024. They alleged genocide via the following: killings, serious harm, and conditions for physical destruction. They find support in Israeli officials’ statements to indicate intent. They utilize 212 interviews, policy analysis, and visual data.
Human Rights Watch published “Extermination and Acts of Genocide” in December 2024. They found extermination and possible genocide based on electricity, fuel, and water cutoffs, plus infrastructure destruction. They utilize 66 interviews and satellite imagery.
UN experts allege reasonable grounds for genocide based on UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese. They cite healthcare destruction and starvation, particularly in the leading Gazan IVF clinic. Israel argued that the claims were baseless and antisemitic, emphasizing self-defence. In addition, they facilitate aid and issue evacuation orders. Amnesty’s Israeli branch dissents. They find no definitive proof of genocidal intent.
Global Response and Political Consequences
Three central politico-legal actions have been issued. In January, March, and May 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to prevent genocide, allow aid, and preserve evidence. So far, compliance has been limited.
The International Criminal Court issued arrests for Hamas (Mohammed Deif) and Israeli leaders (Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant). The warrant for Deif was retracted upon confirmation of death. The UN and aid agencies demand accountability, a ceasefire, and unrestricted aid. Israel’s allies face ongoing arms support scrutiny.
The latter is most visible in North America in many public protests. Responses vary by Israeli ally—allegations of risking complicity nationally with arms transfers. The US notes potential legal breaches while citing incompleteness of evidence.
HRW labelled the October 7 Hamas and other armed groups’ attacks as war crimes. The UN has called for the release of the hostages and the end of rocket attacks.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/24
What happened at Nathan J. Robinson’s Current Affairs magazine during the 2021 co-op dispute and how has it evolved since?
Nathan Robinson’s articles, and Current Affairs generally, have been consistently challenging and thought-provoking, with incisive critique and informative discussion, lucid and provocative, and focused on well-chosen issues of major significance. I find myself regularly recommending Robinson’s articles to others, and re-reading them myself. Unusually valuable contributions.
Current Affairs is one of few superb places to go to get moral and spiritual depth combined with crucial progressive analysis and vision in a decadent American culture! The rich legacies of Martin Luther King, Jr., Noam Chomsky and Barbara Ehrenreich are alive in this marvelous magazine.
Nathan J. Robinson and Current Affairs are consistently excellent, writing at a very high standard, and offering serious and compelling alternative perspectives. Very worth following and reading.
Yes, Nathan is a brazen hypocrite who would be leading the righteous denunciation if this happened to anyone else. The schadenfreude is merited. But the left has created a deranged, self-immolating culture where nobody can survive… Over and over, left-wing spaces destroy themselves. They’re impotent, can’t achieve anything, so turn on each other to feel strong and meaningful. But they can only raise their fist over cheap, performative theater. The puritanical rules they’ve imposed ensure self-destruction... Nathan is reaping what he sowed, just like Scott Stringer, Dianne Morales and so many others. The Frankenstein they unleash to sadistically destroy others eventually comes to eat them. Nathan is a mewling, obsequious socialist, but in this sick leftist prism, he’s Jeff Bezos.
We are sad, aghast, betrayed, and of course, angry to realize that this person we trusted has been lying to us for years. We, a small staff composed entirely of women and non-binary people, have faithfully worked to make Current Affairs the beautiful, engaging leftist magazine and podcast that it is.
Dr. Nathan Robinson earned a J.D. from Yale Law School. He completed his Ph.D. in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University in May 2022. He is a libertarian socialist. He advocates for workers’ rights, democratic workplaces, and anti-capitalist principles. He writes on a wide range of socialist subjects.
He founded the publication Current Affairs in 2015 with Oren Nimni. The original 2015 Kickstarter campaign raised $16,607, surpassing its $10,000 goal. Nimni serves as Legal Editor. Currently, it is based out of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is published as a bimonthly left-wing magazine with thousands of subscribers. It carries no advertising. It is funded by subscriptions and donations.
For about 6 years, things were good, until alleged firings and a worker co-op dispute happened. It involved Dr. Robinson, Allegra Silcox (Business Manager), Lyta Gold (Managing and Amusements Editor), Kate Christian Gauthreaux (Administrative Assistant), Aisling McCrea (Former Podcast Producer), and Cate Root (Poet at Large).
Staff alleged the triggering event was a Zoom meeting on August 7, 2021. There were discussions for a “more democratic workplace” for more than a year on a continuous basis. Robinson perceived the proposed changes as disregarding his vision for Current Affairs.
On August 8, 2021, staff were locked out of Slack. They received emails. The emails requested resignations. Alternatively, he offered “honorary titles.” The titles came with no governance power. Staff perceived this as de factoterminations. No prior notice was given.
No performance improvement plans were provided. Standard practice gives a two-week performance improvement period. However, it is not legally required in all employment contexts, especially for at-will employees in the U.S. Staff claimed being fired for attempts to restructure Current Affairs to a worker-owned cooperative reducing the unilateral control of Dr. Robinson.
The former staff members published a public letter in August, 2021, linked by Lyta Gold. Their central allegation hinged on single statement. “We were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op.”
The letter highlighted the perceived hypocrisy of Dr. Robinson by staff members based on public socialist advocacy, i.e., holding disproportionate power, lack of responsiveness, and prolonged absenteeism. Several portions are indicative:
Yes, we were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op… Nathan became agitated… behaved in a hostile manner… started removing people from the company Slack… sent letters requesting resignations, eliminating positions… offering new ‘honorary titles’ which would have no say in governance… he admitted that he simply did not want Current Affairs to be a democratic workplace… he wrote: ‘I think I should be on top of the org chart, with everyone else selected by me and reporting to me’… We note darkly that he says ‘egalitarian community of friends,’ and not, of course, a workplace… he has effectively fired us for organizing for better work conditions… we are sad, aghast, betrayed… Nathan J. Robinson can write articles and give speeches, but… he simply isn’t up to the task… We have no better explanation for Nathan’s behavior than any of you, but it is clear to us now that this is simply the most extreme event in a pattern of controlling and dishonest actions that began long before this sequence of events and has created an untenable situation for the workers… this feels like a light going out.
Dr. Robinson’s responses changed over time. The initial response, he claims to have “irreparably lost faith” in his staff’s ability to collaborate effectively. Within the first 24 hours, Robinson changed the position, while retracting the original response. Now, he still supported a democratic workplace, but went against a co-op structure. He considered Current Affairs “purely” his project and not a collectively governed entity, but an “egalitarian community of friends.”
He acknowledged personal leadership and shortcomings in this. At the same time, he maintained general support for labour organizing elsewhere. He did not address the hypocrisy allegations directly. Dr. Robinson took three actions. He:
requested resignation of three staffers.
reassigned an employee’s title.
offered a contractor a different role.
On August 19, 2021, the board of directors issued a public statement. No staff had been ‘officially’ fired, while severance discussions were ongoing. Subsequently, Current Affairs was announced as on hiatus on Twitter (now X) by Vanessa A. Bee.
Uncertainty for the future of the magazine surrounded this hiatus. Dr. Robinson began reconciliatory efforts. He offered reinstatement of staff positions. Earlier, in February 2021, The Guardian discontinued Robinson’s U.S. opinion column. The discontinuation followed a satirical tweet about U.S. military aid to Israel.
He struggled with severance negotiations and the maintenance of the organizational community. On August 13, Dr. Robinson proposed $234,352 (USD) in severance. Staff remained on the payroll through September, 2021; bylaws prevented formal terminations. Five departing staffers received severances totaling $76,014. This was about 34% of the magazine’s cash reserves. They remained on payroll through September 2021 per board bylaws.
Yasmin Nair alludes to departing staff spreading falsehoods; further, those leading to online harassment of Robinson and financial harm to the magazine. Direct causal connection and financial specifics remain unconfirmed. Structural and vision disagreements were the dispute, not ideological betrayal.
The staff’s push for a co-op structure aligned with progressive values and Dr. Robinson’s stipulated values. The tension between individual centralized authority and collective governance showed in the story. Since 2023, no major developments on this particular narrative. He co-authored The Myth of American Idealism with Prof. Noam Chomsky in 2024. Currently, Current Affairs is operational and Dr. Robinson retains status as Editor-in-Chief.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/24
What are the primary causes and symptoms of burnout among clergy, and how has the post-pandemic era affected their mental health and professional efficacy?
Burn-out is a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions:
feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion;
increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job; and
reduced professional efficacy.
Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases (2019)
Burnout is a psychological syndrome emerging as a prolonged response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job. The three key dimensions of this response are an overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job, and a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.
Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry (2016)
Burnout is a state of physical, emotional, or mental exhaustion accompanied by decreased motivation, lowered performance, and negative attitudes toward oneself and others.
APA Dictionary of Psychology (2015)
Clergy are people. Intellectuals, granted, but they get burnout. Some colleagues with theological backgrounds pointed this out in commentaries, recently. So, I decided to look into this a bit more.
Burnout is not merely a colloquialism, but a occupational phenomenon, while not a medical condition. Since 2019, the World Health Organization has classified it as an occupational phenomenon, marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal efficacy. Burnout is a more precise term for the real experience of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion.
They feel emotionally exhausted, psychologically depersonalized, and feel a reduced sense of accomplishment. Granted, clergy have a long list of duties. While some traditional duties have faded, many clergy have taken on new responsibilities, especially in digital outreach, social services, and crisis management.
Clergy have long hours, deal with congregational conflict, various social and ritual obligations, and the emotional labour of a community’s wellbeing. It’s couched in theological terms, but it’s secular concerns.
I was interested in the topic. What I found was genuinely interesting, there have been studies on the clergy on their wellbeing. A Hartford Institute survey in the United States found 44% of clergy have thought of leaving the congregation while 53% thought of exiting ministry since 2020.
This is a 16% rise since a 2021 AP News source. While the Barna Group has noted a decline in pastors considering quitting full-time ministry between 2022 (42%) and 2023 (33%), which may suggest a post-pandemic recovery or an early pandemic bump.
Over in Portugal, a 2025 study of Catholic priests found 34% experienced daily fatigue and irritation. This is in spite of high ministry satisfaction. So, satisfaction and ‘burnout’ may be decoupled in some key aspects. While a study of pastoral musicians in the States in 2024 found 83.8% had, at least, one burnout symptom, 41.3% fell low efficacy and 12.4% had high emotional exhaustion.
A 2023 Wespath survey found 69% of clergy in the United Methodist Church felt “tired” or “have little energy.” Any congregational conflict or resistance increased burnout. 73% find finances “slightly stressful” in this denomination.
While U.S. pastors as a whole report loneliness amongst 65% of them, they report frequent isolation in 2023. According to the Barna Group, this is up from 42% in 2015. 32% of the Church of England clergy did not trust their diocese to safeguard their well-being. The stories get even more complex.
When using the Maslach Burnout Inventory or MBI, clergy burnout is real, but moderate compared to other helping professions. On Depersonalization, clergy scores (2.9–8.1) are lower than police (5.6–17.4) and emergency personnel (6.5–13.7), while higher than counselors (1.7–26.9).
On Emotional Exhaustion, clergy scores (12.9–23.5) are lower than police or emergency personnel (14.3–26.6), while higher than counselors (8.6–42.4). On Personal Accomplishment, clergy scores (32.8–40.8) are moderate, while worse than counselors (9.3–43.6). Clergy may experience unique challenges in trauma and moral injury.
Regionally, there are some insights. In the United States, mainline Protestants and small-church pastors, including Evangelicals, continue to experience burnout, while being less likely to leave. In the United Kingdom, 32% of the Church of England show signs of clinical depression. 1-in-5 meet clinical thresholds. They work 50-60 hours per week.
In Australia, 36% of clergy considered resignation in 2023. Women and solo clergy are higher risk in those categories. In Portugal, Catholic priests report high satisfaction and significant fatigue. Now, the intriguing part is the emerging issues around and after the most recent global pandemic.
70% of U.S. pastors report mental health flourishing in 2023. It was 64% in 2021. Clergy burnout are driven primarily by loneliness and congregational conflict. If they, or others experiencing burnout, want to reduce the burden, they can do some things:
Regular breaks reduce emotional exhaustion.
Peer groups and mentoring with extraversion and leisure.
Programs to address financial stress.
Tailored coaching leveraging extraversion.
Combining trauma care with workload boundaries.
Burnout for clergy is marked more for the younger clergy with heavy workloads, conflict-ridden environments, and in the post-pandemic setting.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/24
*This interview is a contribution to an upcoming text on global indigeneity and international humanism from In-Sight Publishing.*
How do Indigenous communities in Canada reconcile traditional spirituality with Christianity and humanist or atheist worldviews?
Dennis Bevington, former MP for the Northwest Territories, talks about the intersection of indigeneity, humanism, and atheism. He is non-Indigenous and was mayor of Fort Smith–a majoritively Indigenous fort in the Northwest Territories. Bevington reflects on his journey from a scientific worldview to curiosity about unexplained phenomena, while maintaining non-religious beliefs. He highlights how Indigenous communities blend traditional spirituality with Christianity, and how humanists reconcile identity without supernaturalism. Bevington describes the challenges of constitutional development, colonial legacies, and the shift in governance structures. He emphasizes the importance of open public dialogue and respect for cultural integrity, noting practical examples of syncretism, such as combined Indigenous and Christian ceremonies at community events.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dennis Bevington, former Member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories from 2006 to 2015. So today, we will discuss indigeneity, humanism, and potentially atheism, and how one can navigate or reconcile these elements.
Many people have explored this intersection, but from what I’ve seen, it’s often approached on a national level while being grounded in small, in-depth, often syncretic case studies. This reminds me of how a friend of mine, Tsimshian, an Alaska Native and American Presbyterian minister, approaches this. Her theology is rooted in the traditional Indigenous beliefs she already held.
That sort of blending seems familiar across Indigenous communities in Canada as well. So, how would you frame the relationship between indigeneity and, primarily, Christianity in Canada? And for the minority within those communities who identify as atheist or humanist, how do they work that out for themselves? How do Indigenous people in Canada reconcile their Indigenous identity with the legacy of Christianity, which was imposed on many of their communities through colonization?
Dennis Bevington: Regardless of atheism, many Indigenous communities seem to understand that reconnecting with a form of spirituality aligned with traditional worldviews is a meaningful and healing process.
Even if someone is not drawn to spiritual practice themselves, there is often deep respect for those who are. This is especially evident in individuals recovering from addiction, systemic poverty, and intergenerational trauma—issues that disproportionately affect Indigenous communities in Canada. There is a greater respect today for Indigenous spirituality than there was, say, forty years ago. That respect has grown.
I have good friends who practice Indigenous spirituality. I sometimes join them in sweat lodge ceremonies—probably every couple of months. What stands out to me is the openness: They say, “Pray as you see fit.” Some rituals are followed, and they ask that you respect them, but the experience itself is collective, inclusive, and welcoming.
That’s my connection to Indigenous spirituality. I don’t identify as a religious practitioner, but throughout my life, as a mayor and then as a Member of Parliament, I’ve appreciated what religion and spirituality can offer communities in a positive sense. They can provide support, purpose, and healing, which is a very important part of many people’s lives.
Jacobsen: Is there ever any sense of being “in the closet” as a humanist or atheist within your community in Canada?
Bevington: No, not really. That’s not a significant issue where I come from.
My immediate family—my son, my daughter, and my wife—are all spiritual, but I wouldn’t necessarily call them religious. They don’t attend church but gather every Sunday to connect, talk about spirituality and Christianity, and support one another. They know I don’t share the same interest in spirituality as they do, and they’re completely accepting. They don’t criticize or pressure me about it.
But I live in a fairly unique community. I don’t think you’d find the same degree of empathy or acceptance for non-religious individuals—people who identify as humanists or atheists—in many other small rural communities across Canada. It depends on the specific community. Some communities are accepting, while others are not. It wouldn’t always be well-received.
Jacobsen: What is the population of your community?
Bevington: For the transcript, the population of Fort Smith, where I live, is about 2,500 to 3,000.
Jacobsen: Would that be about the average population size for small communities in Canada, or more specifically, in the Northwest Territories?
Bevington: No, not quite. In the Northwest Territories, we have 33 communities. There’s one major centre—Yellowknife—with around 20,000 people. Then there are a few mid-sized communities like Inuvik and Hay River, each with about 3,500 people, and Fort Smith, which is slightly less than that. After that, the numbers drop significantly. Many communities have populations around 1,000 or fewer. Quite a number of them have between 300 and 500 people, and a few have as few as 100.
It’s interesting when you look at the demographics. Communities tend to stay at a specific population size until something triggers growth, like economic development or government investment, and then they jump to a higher size. It’s a growth phenomenon. I remember reading about it years ago, though I wouldn’t call myself an expert.
You can see it in Alberta, where some communities have grown this way. Another example is Nunavut, where the birth rate is high and communities are expanding rapidly. That’s part of why Nunavut faces such severe housing shortages—it puts intense pressure on community infrastructure.
Jacobsen: Were you always a humanist, or did you have a prior philosophical or religious commitment?
Bevington: No. I was always—well, even when I was younger, attending church with my parents—I didn’t find it interesting. I wasn’t drawn to religion. In school, I would get into long debates with teachers who held religious beliefs. We’d have extended dialogues about the nature of the universe and similar topics. So, from early on, I was very much on the scientific side.
Over time, my attitude has shifted slightly. I’m still not religious, but I sense that there’s some creative force or order in the universe that remains unexplained—and that idea interests me more now than it used to. But I haven’t found anything that leads me to a firm conclusion, and I certainly haven’t experienced any spiritual awakening.
Jacobsen: So, the proverbial finger hasn’t come out of the sky and tapped you on the head?
Bevington: No, not at all—and I’m perfectly comfortable with that. I don’t feel any remorse about not having a strong sense of spirituality.
I also see the problems that sometimes arise for people with fixed religious beliefs. Those beliefs can lead to rigid views about what will happen in the world, the universe, or their personal lives. That rigidity can become limiting or even harmful.
Jacobsen: For those First Nations or Métis people who are not particularly adherent to traditional beliefs and practices, or who take part in ceremonies but do not believe in the supernatural aspects, are there meaningful distinctions we should be aware of? Whether they are Cree, Métis, Chipewyan, or from elsewhere in the region where you served as mayor and grew up, do you notice different paths people take regarding philosophical or spiritual reconciliation?
Bevington: That’s a big question. Reconciliation and restoration of Indigenous and Métis culture have been difficult and remain incomplete. There are still many areas of pain and struggle. It’s hard to imagine it reaching full realization any time soon, though there is some hope.
I’ve noticed that there are two bands in our area. One of them places a stronger emphasis on traditional spirituality, and it seems to be seeing better outcomes—more cohesion, more cultural vitality—than the one that doesn’t put as much effort into practicing or maintaining those traditions.
Traditional spirituality gives people a sense that their culture is important, meaningful, and filled with integrity. Those are the qualities people need to lead good lives. If someone has grown up facing addiction, family trauma, or unstable relationships, it’s tough to move forward without becoming hardened by those experiences. Even if they survive or prosper in material terms, there’s a psychological toll. Traditional spiritual practices can soften that hardening and reintroduce a sense of worth and purpose.
And that hardened attitude is a difficult thing to overcome. It often means you make choices that, later on, you might not feel good about. But if you’ve become hardened, brush it off and continue on the same path. Many Indigenous people recognize the sickness in broader non-Indigenous society—the degree of corruption—as part of what drives the larger system. Those who see this often become quite jaundiced. I don’t believe that leads to a healthy or prosperous way of life.
Jacobsen: That sounds to me like a textural and aesthetic analysis of ethics, where, in mainstream Anglo and Franco-European Canadian culture, societal pathologies stem from the economy. That economic foundation leads to psychological patterns, such as greed, avarice, the willingness to trample over others, and the drive to avoid any internal or external state of poverty, at all costs.
Bevington: Yes, exactly. And how that plays out in some Indigenous communities, which is quite interesting. There’s now much power available to Indigenous people in various ways. But power—well, in broader society, we have structured systems for contesting and distributing it. I’m not sure those systems reflect the traditional Indigenous approach to power.
Now, Indigenous people are engaging with a different kind of power—often externally imposed—and that shift creates conflict and tension. I’ve seen this in band governance and Métis relationships over the years. If there had been a more traditional sense of power sharing or collective decision-making—something culturally rooted and accepted by everyone—it might have created a smoother path.
But this transition, from traditional power dynamics rooted in family, oral tradition, and communal responsibility, to a Western model where power is expressed by marking a ballot in an election, is fundamentally different. It’s a difficult shift. Even in non-Indigenous communities, we see significant challenges with political transformation. So, the added burden of shifting cultural paradigms in Indigenous communities only makes it more complex.
We see court case after court case—this is ongoing. It is one of the persistent problems with the systems that have been set up for Indigenous peoples to access and exercise power within a colonial framework.
Jacobsen: If you could design your ideal governance structure that balances contemporary humanist ethics with Indigenous systems of decision-making and power, while honouring the reconciliatory efforts of the Canadian government, what would that look like?
Bevington: I’ve thought about that quite a bit, especially in the context of the Northwest Territories. We still don’t have a finalized constitutional framework. I was co-chair of the Constitutional Development Steering Committee in the mid-1990s, when we created two separate territories. Nunavut resolved its constitutional questions internally and established a system that, in many ways, has served them well.
In contrast, here in the Northwest Territories, as we entered the same constitutional development process, there was resistance at many levels to the ideas coming out of our committee. We hosted a large constitutional conference in 1996. It became a real moment of understanding—a positive experience overall—but the follow-through wasn’t there. There was a point where we came to a shared understanding—that Indigenous and public governments needed to advance on parallel tracks, with mutual respect on both sides. Yes.
But just two weeks later, the federal government cut off funding for our organization. This happened with the support of the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who was Inuvialuit—Nellie Cournoyea. In some ways, she was the outlier in all this, likely because she had stronger linkages to Nunavut, which was being separated. That area of the Northwest Territories was particularly complex regarding constitutional development. The best solution she saw, it seems, was to ignore the whole process.
So that’s where I’ve seen real tension in moving forward. There have been good ideas—ways of maintaining the notion that Indigenous and public governments should be equal, with clear systems for providing services and legislation that respects both. Some of those ideas are still being tested today.
Under the Harper government, during the devolution agreement of 2013–2014, the federal government essentially said: “This is your responsibility now, territorial government. You figure out the relationship.” They weren’t particularly interested in engaging with the more profound constitutional questions. They did care about ensuring that governance debates would not hinder resource development. But as for how we chose to live together? That wasn’t a concern for them.
That’s my observation, as I was a member of Parliament at the time and was closely involved in the devolution discussions in Parliament. Now the Liberals are in government. They tend to be centralists in many ways, and it’s hard to get a clear sense of how they view constitutional development in the North. Their model leans more toward the idea that Indigenous governments should be separate, not twin tracks working in parallel with public governments. So it’s less about integration and more about separation.
Over the years, I’ve gotten people interested in constitutional development. I did this both as a Member of Parliament and afterward. But it’s not been easy to get people involved, especially in a public way. And that’s a significant problem, because these things must be public. The discussion has to be open. The thinking has to be transparent. You can’t decide these matters behind closed doors, in a cabinet room, or through bilateral conversations with First Nations leadership that exclude the public.
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of reluctance now to engage in public discussions about constitutional change, perhaps because past efforts have been frustrating or inconclusive.
Jacobsen: Earlier, you focused more on the role of individuals in this process. Can you take me back to that line of thought? It was both a collective and individual question. We discussed governance, relationships, realistic and evidence-based reconciliation, and how those can align with humanist values while respecting traditional structures.
The individual side of the question concerns the appropriateness of someone’s relationship to Indigenous governance structures, alongside those imposed by the Canadian government, especially when that individual holds humanistic or explicitly humanist values. How does one think through this deeply and find an appropriate balance that feels suitable to them?
So yes, the collective aspect is more pragmatic and focused on governance for everyone. The individual side is more about philosophical reconciliation: aligning ethics and worldview. Then, we can state the obvious parts in passing, such as the humanist rejection of supernaturalism and divine intervention. That shapes how one engages with spiritual traditions.
Bevington: Yes, that can be challenging. For Indigenous people, belief in the Grandfathers—those who have passed on—is central to traditional spirituality. They’re seen as spirits carrying messages and providing Indigenous people protection and guidance. That’s a deeply embedded part of the spiritual worldview.
So yes, if you come from a humanist position that excludes supernaturalism, then you’re setting aside a significant dimension of Indigenous spirituality. That’s not a small thing—it’s foundational.
Over the years, I’ve come across experiences that I would describe as, at the very least, interesting—maybe what people might call paranormal. I can’t say more than that. I’m still fundamentally someone who approaches things scientifically or rationally. But I’ve witnessed things—some personally, others through people I trust in the community—that are difficult to explain.
And there is still a strong element of this belief system among most Indigenous people. A large number continue to report experiences with spirits or ghosts. That’s very real to them—it’s culturally embedded.
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating intersection—both anthropologically and psychologically. Many Indigenous people had grandparents or great-grandparents who were ideologically colonized through Christianity. That belief system brought a complex spiritual cosmology: angels, demons, spirits, and a divine moral order.
So when you speak about beliefs in ghosts, the Grandfathers, and even paranormal experiences, those might get interwoven with Christian symbols and narratives introduced by force or coercion. Some people adopted them, but for many, these beliefs were imposed.
Bevington: Yes. Let me give you an example. One time, a local man approached me and my brother-in-law. He knew us both as responsible members of the community. He approached us very concerned and said, “Someone is practicing bad medicine on me.”
He was serious. He believed that a person in the community was intentionally harming him through spiritual or ritual means—what some might call bad medicine. It wasn’t just superstition to him. It was a lived experience with real emotional and psychological weight. He was seeking help—not from a doctor, but from people he trusted in the community.
He mentioned the person’s name. Three days later, he was found dead on the side of the highway. The police concluded it was an accident involving his rifle—he was reportedly pulling it out of his truck when it discharged. Later, I discovered that the first person on the scene—the one who reported the incident—was the same person he had identified as practicing the bad medicine on him.
I reported that to the police at the time because I thought it should be taken into account, but nothing came of it. No one followed up. It was officially recorded as an accident. However, the circumstances struck me as very odd.
Jacobsen: Perhaps shifting from contrast to comparison—since we’re short on time—what would you say are some similarities between Indigenous traditional beliefs, at least among the bands in your region, and Christianity? What aspects seem more easily reconcilable?
I can offer a practical example. I recently interviewed a man from Aotearoa New Zealand—he’s Māori and the author of Māori Boy Atheist, the only book written on Māori atheism and humanism. We did a long-form interview and a series of follow-ups.
During the conversation, he pointed to the haka—the traditional Māori war dance that has become widely known partly because of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and the New Zealand All Blacks. It’s culturally prominent.
Looking at the haka, I saw no inherent contradiction between the dance and a humanist or atheist worldview. It did not require supernatural belief, making it an easily reconcilable cultural practice requiring little cognitive dissonance.
So, are there elements like that in your community—things that are easily reconcilable between Christianity and indigeneity or between humanism and indigeneity?
Bevington: Sure. From my experience, yes. For example, just the other night, I was at a celebration hosted by one of the bands. They invited a well-known drumming group. At the event’s start, they performed a traditional drum prayer to open the evening. But afterward, they also made the cross sign and recited a Roman Catholic prayer.
So the traditional Indigenous prayer and the Christian ritual were used—one after the other, without contradiction. That’s quite common among many conventional people in the region.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dennis.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/23
How has the Lindsay Shepherd case influenced freedom of expression policies and academic freedom standards at Canadian universities?
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)
The University is a public body… subject to the Charter. The actions taken to discipline the students for their online comments infringed their right to freedom of expression.
Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABCA 347
Colleges and universities must implement a free speech policy that conforms to the principles of free expression as expressed in the University of Chicago’s Statement.
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2018 Directive
Academic freedom includes the right to teach, learn, study and publish free of orthodoxy or threat of reprisal… and to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Statement on Academic Freedom
Prelude to Controversy: Free Expression in Higher Education
Over time, controversies may settle, particularly in Canadian academic culture.
Lindsay Shepherd’s academic case began in November 2017. It involved academic freedom and freedom of expression. The debate originated at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU). What happened?
Shepherd showed a video of Jordan Peterson in class. Shepherd filed a lawsuit in June of 2018. WLU later apologized. The case was cited in national debates about freedom of expression policies at Canadian universities. Ontario mandated policies in 2018. Let us go into some of the details and further outcomes.
2017: Context and Early Developments in the Shepherd Case
In late 2017, Lindsay Shepherd was a Canadian graduate student and teaching assistant. On November 1, 2017, she showed two TVOntario’s The Agenda clips of Dr. Jordan Peterson speaking on Bill C-16. Shepherd presented the Peterson video to engage students. She reported no firm opinion of him. She did this in a first-year communications class. The action appeared intended to illustrate a debate on gender-neutral pronouns. This triggered administrative action. Bill C-16 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also extends protections against hate speech and hate propaganda.
Following the class on November 8, 2017, a student approached WLU’s Rainbow Centre. They had concerns about the clips shown. The Centre contacted the university administration. The specifics of the complaint are uncertain; no formal complaint was ever filed. Shepherd was called into a supervisory meeting with Nathan Rambukkana (Shepherd’s Supervisor), Adria Joel (Gender Violence Prevention), and Herbert Pimlott (Program Head). The processes followed leading to the meeting are uncertain. The meeting lasted 40 minutes. The three expressed concerns that her actions had created a ‘toxic climate.’ The reason: Neutral presentation of clips. Shepherd was asked to pre-approve all lesson plans in the future. Shepherd recorded the meeting on her mother’s advice after receiving a vague email about the meeting.
On November 10, 2017, Shepherd released a meeting recording to the National Post. She believed the issue was of public interest because universities hold a societal role and garner taxpayer funding, so she contacted the media after the private meeting. The recording emphasized freedom of expression, Bill C-16, and the Canadian Human Rights Code. It garnered national attention. The incident sparked ongoing national debates on academic freedom at WLU and beyond.
On November 21, 2017, WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and Nathan Rambukkana published public apologies. They stated that Shepherd had done nothing wrong. Rambukkana and Pimlott emphasized the need for a “safe learning environment” and criticized ideas lacking “academic credibility.” MacLatchy acknowledged an “institutional failure.” (Later, Shepherd described Rambukkana’s apology as “disingenuous” in her lawsuit.)
On December 18, 2017, Robert Centa conducted an independent inquiry. Centa concluded that no formal complaint was filed, the two clips shown did not violate policy, and the meeting represented “significant overreach.”
2018: Litigation, Legislative Response, and Public Discourse
In January 2018, Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry with two other students. LSOI invited controversial speakers and faced some challenges, including high-security costs. In May 2018, Canadians for Accountability awarded Shepherd the Harry Weldon Canadian Values Award. WLU also approved a Statement on Freedom of Expression. The policy outlines student discipline via the Non-Academic Code of Conduct. It requires compliance for group recognition and funding. It directs unresolved complaints to the Ontario Ombudsman. Also, the policy mandates annual implementation reports starting September 1, 2019.
In June 2018, Shepherd filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against WLU, Rambukkana, Pimlott, Joel, and a student. She alleged constructive dismissal, harassment, and negligence. Independently, Peterson filed a $1.5 million defamation suit against WLU and involved staff based on the comments in the 2017 meeting. It was filed separately from Shepherd’s.
In August 2018, Ontario mandated publicly funded colleges and universities to adopt free speech policies based on Chicago Principles, based on a broader debate on academic freedom and free speech, which included Shepherd’s case. All institutions are required to report annually to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
In December 2018, Rambukkana and Pimlott lodged a third‑party claim against Shepherd as part of legal proceedings related to Peterson’s lawsuit. The professors argued that Shepherd should be liable for damages from releasing the recorded meeting. They argued that Shepherd was responsible for recording and publishing a private meeting. Privacy and free speech rights conflicted.
In response to Ontario’s 2018 mandate, publicly funded universities were mandated to establish free speech policies by January 1, 2019. Enforcement is overseen by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). Institutions that are non-compliant may face reduced funding. The Campus Freedom Index, published annually since 2011, documented persistent institutional failures. In 2018, WLU and six other universities earned an “F” grade on free speech.
2019-Present: Lindsay Shepherd Lawsuit Dismissal, Twitter Ban, and Ongoing Free Speech Debate in Canadian Universities
2019, the University of Ottawa and the University of Alberta provided unconditional protection. The rest had caveats. In 2020, thirteen universities earned an “F,” and 21 student unions failed. As of 2025, there have been no significant developments in these policies, though they remain actively debated. The 2018–2019 frameworks are still in place.
On February 7, 2019, Shepherd became a Campus Free Speech Fellow at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. On July 14, 2019, Twitter (now X) banned Shepherd. The exchange became public and controversial, leading to media scrutiny of both parties. The exchange was deemed “abusive behaviour.” The ban stemmed from a Twitter exchange involving comments related to reproductive health and public figures. Later that July, her account was reinstated.
Shepherd’s teaching contract was cancelled in early 2020. As a teaching assistant, not a faculty member with a formal academic contract, non-renewal can be common and not necessarily punitive. Peterson’s lawsuit was dismissed in April 2024 on legal grounds and procedural merit. The full judgment text is not public. On November 8, 2024, a court dismissed the $3.6 million lawsuit. As of May 23, 2025, the dismissal has been noted in public summaries, but the ruling text is not publicly available yet. National discussions on the balance between free speech equity, diversity, and inclusion continue on Canadian campuses. The 2018–2019 policy frameworks are extant.
Now, Shepherd’s case remains central to debates over academic freedom. WLU and other universities continue to publish annual free‑speech reports, and others, like the Campus Freedom Index, track compliance and campus speech environments. Shepherd’s memoir, “Diversity and Exclusion: Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis,” offers a detailed presentation of opinions on academic freedom.
The chronology reveals an ordinary pedagogical decision leading to national debates, legal battles, and policy changes. The case and the lawsuit’s impacts on Shepherd’s academic career and professional legacy remain unclear. Its long-term impact remains to be seen.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/22
What are the key details surrounding the May 21, 2025, murder of Israeli diplomats Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim outside a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., and how are authorities framing it amid rising antisemitism?
On May 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C., two young staff diplomats–Yaron Lischinsky (30) and Sarah Lynn Milgrim (26)–were murdered. They were shot outside of the Lillian & Albert Small Capital Jewish Museum.
Lischinsky served in the Israeli Defense Forces and then earned degrees in international relations and diplomacy. He championed the Abraham Accords and interfaith dialogue and was a Christian convert to Judaism.
Milgrim holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Kansas and dual master’s degrees in international affairs from American University and the United Nations University for Peace. She researched peacebuilding with Tech2Peace, then joined the embassy’s Department of Public Diplomacy in 2023. She was active in a Reform Jewish synagogue.
They came from the “AJC ACCESS Young Diplomats Reception” of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). AJC is intended to foster unity amongst young Jewish professionals. Yaron Lischinsky, a German-Israeli, served as a policy research assistant at the Israeli Embassy. Sarah Lynn Milgrim, an American from Kansas, worked in the embassy’s public diplomacy department. Both are working for peace and dialogue in the Middle East.
The suspect is Elias Rodriguez (30) from Chicago, Illinois. He was apprehended at the scene. He shouted “Free Palestine” upon arrest, among other slogans. Court documents reveal Rodriguez saying, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.”
Rodriguez earned a bachelor’s degree in English (2018) from the University of Illinois Chicago. He worked at the American Osteopathic Information Association and was an oral history researcher for The HistoryMakers. Past affiliations include the Party for Socialism and Liberation and ANSWER. He bought a 9 mm handgun five years ago.
He arrived in Washington on May 20, 2025. He purchased tickets to the reception shortly before the event. He was pacing outside the museum. Surveillance shows several shots fired as the couple departs. There was a pause for reloading. He discarded the weapon. He entered the museum. Event security detained him.
Investigators examined an alleged manifesto online by Rodriguez. It condemns Israeli actions in Gaza and praises prior protests. Rodriguez has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder, murder of foreign officials, and multiple firearm-related offenses.
Authorities are investigating the incident as both an act of terrorism and a hate crime. Interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro characterized it as a “death penalty‑eligible case.” Preliminary court hearing is June 18, 2025.
Some reports indicate wide condemnation as an antisemitic act. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attribute the murders to rising antisemitism. President Donald Trump condemned the killings. He described them as ‘antisemitic’ and calling for an end to hate-driven violence. Secretary of State Marco Rubio labelled the act as a “brazen act of cowardly, antisemitic violence.”
Israeli embassies are reported to heighten security measures globally. Concerns intensified for the safety of diplomatic personnel and Jewish institutions with escalations in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The Anti‑Defamation League reported over 9,300 antisemitic incidents in 2024, which is a 344% increase over five years. U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI continue to investigate.
With files from Reuters, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/22
How did the term “incel,” originally coined as a gender-inclusive support label, evolve into a male-dominated ideology associated with misogyny and violence?
I was trying to create a movement that was open to anybody and everybody.
Incels are heterosexual men who blame women and society for their lack of romantic success… A subset of the online misogynist “manosphere” that includes Pick Up Artists and Men’s Rights Activists, incels are known for their deep-seated pessimism and profound sense of grievance against women… The incel ideology is rooted in the belief that women have too much power in the sexual/romantic sphere and ruin incels’ lives by rejecting them… Incels are the most violent sector of the manosphere, and have perpetrated a range of deadly attacks against women…
Involuntary celibate was created and meant as a reference to any gender who experienced unwanted singleness. No animus to women or sexually active people. Alana left Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project around the late 1990s, possibly as early as 1997. She is in her early 50s now. Regardless, others took over. Slowly, some men became the majority. These drifted into male-only spaces. It is overwhelmingly cisgender heterosexual men now.“Involuntary celibate” as a portmanteau “incel” emerged by the late 2000s. Online fora–Love-shy.com and 4chan–used the term with negative connotations. Mainstream notoriety began post-2014 after Elliot Rodger’s murders.
These killings are commonly seen as the first major act of mass violence and ideological crystallization of modern incels. Media and law enforcement reports have increasingly focused on violent offenders who self-identify as “incel.” Since Elliot Rodger’s 2014 mass killing in Isla Vista, California, the FBI included ‘incel’ in domestic terrorism threat assessments since 2019 now. Rodger’s manifesto framed women as collectively guilty for his perceived suffering. By implication, his murders were an act of individual killing grounded in perception of the victims’ collective culpability. The full transition to negative frames about one gender, from the original gender neutral and positive meaning, took about two decades or so.
Cambridge Dictionary defines incel as follows, “Member of a group on the internet who are unable to find sexual partners… and who express hate toward people they blame.” In short, the term was a support label then became an extremist banner. Its founder no longer endorses the term. Now, the mystery is any correlates or a singular causal link. Across history, some men resent women, think Elliot Rodger, and some women hate men, think Valerie Solanas. The mystery remains: is there a singular causal link between involuntary celibacy and acts of violence?
On the former case, “I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex.” (2014) On the latter case, “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo” or “He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness.” (1967) I see three core pathways of thought. Some individuals genuinely experience social rejection, mental illness, or online radicalization. Factors not reducible to gender alone. Reactance to the former, “This doesn’t represent all men”–a defensive posture, fence building.
To the latter, “These are MRA talking points.”–an accusatory stance, janitorial work. Both speak to biases. The former for men, not necessarily against women; the latter for women, not necessarily anti-men. Brief apologia for clearly stated attitudes followed by extreme criminal acts. The comparison is thematic. Solanas almost killed Warhol; Rodger’s evolved into a posthumous organized movement. To respond to some defenders, if Solanas meant SCUM Manifesto as a joke, then an attempted murder of a male is a terrible punchline.
If some among these minorities of girls and boys, men and women, are criminals, then it’s a criminal justice issue. If others among these minorities of them are hurting and feeling unheard, then there’s another productive path for this too. The third option is seeing both forms of sexism as problems. It provides a lens for solutions-oriented work. Efforts towards the more general vision of a freer world with greater parity. A world where women can make strides in public and men can make leaps in private. These are choices. As women have made gains in public leadership, men are making strides in private and caregiving domains.
Take, for example, Iceland, for the first time, they have women as both Prime Minister and President. President Halla Tómasdóttir and Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir since 2024. They weren’t the first either. Sri Lanka did this in 1994. Finland did this in 2003 and 2010-2011. Estonia did this in 2021. Likewise, we have men entering nursing, early childhood education, social work, and becoming stay-at-home parents. Movember and HeadsUpGuys promote male mental health. Nordic countries have a use-it-or-lose-it paternity leave access. More shared custody and equal parenting happens in separation proceedings. Dads have parenting blogs. Men’s podcast and discussion circles exist, and so on.
Much popular reportage reduces the term to a slur, often against young men and teenage boys. An insult to others akin to YouTube arguments devolving to mutual shouting matches hinging on accusations of one, the other, or both, being a “Nazi.” Colloquially, “incel” is a male-gendered epithet. Some scholars make distinctions, though. Those are telling. They indicate the reality of the plural nature of the term “incel.” For instance, by implication, the original larger group of involuntary celibates is extant. Scholars distinguish between “true incels” and “ideological incels.” True incels are the original group: those seeking support. A legitimate and humane community-building effort of mutual relational assistance, a la Alana in 1993. Ideological incels are those promoting misogyny and violence, even engaging occasionally in acts of mass killing. Some online incel subcultures actively reject violence, while being hostile to mainstream feminism or dating norms. Still hate is present, it’s more specific to contemporary dating and some types of feminism.
In sum, ‘incel’ is not a monolith. It is a term with a history, a spectrum of meanings, and a contested present. The original creation and meaning by Alana was a positive social contribution for all genders. In popular usage, it became the lost child, the Prodigal Son.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/21
How does Prime Minister Mark Carney’s family history intersect with the legacy of assimilationist education and Indigenous policy in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories?
Mark Carney’s Election and the Shadow of History
Prime Minister Mark Carney of the Liberal Party of Canada ran and won in the last federal election in Canada. The federal election took place on April 28, 2025. He became the 24th Prime Minister of Canada. He comes from a Roman Catholic family background, particularly through his father, Robert James “Bob” Carney. He was a high-school principal and university professor who lived and worked in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, in the 1960s. This prompts a deeper examination of the historical record. One can focus on surface-level news coverage using terms like ‘culturally retarded’ based on secondary unverified sources, then miss the deeper narrative surrounding the Prime Minister’s father. Surface-level coverage, akin to broad-stroke commentary common on social media, can serve a role in initial public awareness. However, it must be approached with accuracy and care. Alternatively, one can go beyond the conventional centre-left framing in Canadian media, or disregard it entirely, as many centre-right outlets do. This analysis seeks to move beyond binary framings. Life does not come in neat packages.
Institutional Foundations in Fort Smith
Robert Carney served as the then-principal of Fort Smith Federal Day School in January 1959. It was officially named Joseph Burr Tyrrell School in March 1961. It initially offered Grades 1‑12 to pupils drawn from across the Mackenzie District. Its official name was not Fort Smith Federal Day School but Joseph Burr Tyrrell School, which primarily served Indigenous students. Federally, JBT was run as an ‘Indian day school.’ In 2019, the school was formally listed in the Federal Indian Day School Class Action (“Schedule K”). Fort Smith has a population of around 2,248, in 2021, and 63% identify as Indigenous. Today, there are approximately 280 pupils and 40 staff. Languages offered are English, French, Cree, and Chipewyan.
There was inclusion in compensation processes for day‑school survivors. The principal Carney oversaw Indigenous youth and children in the Fort Smith locale. They were housed in nearby church-run residential facilities. However, Carney did not oversee residential schools directly. Carney’s professional life was deeply rooted in his administrative work in the North of Canada, which was aimed at the local Indigenous communities. Then-Principal Carney was deeply committed to the Catholic faith based on an analysis of statements purportedly made in a 1965 CBC Radio interview. By 1965, the school had 33 classrooms, an auditorium, an industrial‑arts shop, a home‑economics room, and served Grades 1‑12.
Cultural Framing and Assimilationist Education
He discussed the program at JBT for–in his terms–‘culturally retarded’ Indigenous children. According to later newspaper summaries of a 1965 CBC Radio broadcast, Carney reportedly described the ‘culturally retarded child’ as ‘a child from a Native background who, for various reasons, has not been in regular attendance in school.’ A phrase reported in secondary sources. Furthermore, no direct evidence of these statements extant could be found for this educational piece. The language reflects terminology and some people’s attitudes of the time. I repeat: These reported claims are currently unsubstantiated in addition to the claims about his administration of assimilationist policies. Regardless, as was widely done, Indigenous children at JBT were compared to the Euro-Canadian Catholic cultural and educational standards of the time. When speaking of Fort Smith and surrounding areas, we are talking of Dene nations, e.g., Smith’s Landing First Nation (Thebacha Dene), Salt River First Nation, and Métis Communities.
These Métis communities were descendants of Dene and European (primarily French) fur traders. The principal traditional language is Dënesųłiné (Chipewyan) spoken by Smith’s Landing First Nation and Salt River First Nation. The Chipewyan people of Smith’s Landing First Nation are descendants of those from the Lower Slave River and northeastern Alberta, while the Salt River First Nation are those who signed Treaty 8 in 1899.
The Local Nations and Their Histories
As per current commentary, then-principal Carney was a principal of a federal day school and adhered to assimilationist education policies, but was not a residential school principal. He ran JBT, not the boarding facilities. However, these operated in tandem with the residential institutions of Fort Smith. Indigenous children were boarded at a hostel or residence run by the Catholic Church and then sent to JBT for day classes.
He was a bridge between Indigenous families and local communities, nuns, and clergy from the Roman Catholic Church who managed the hostels and missionary work. Fort Smith was formative for the work and life of Robert Carney circa 60 years ago. In the broader purview, Fort Smith functioned as a hub for residential schools and assimilationist educational efforts. (Roman Catholic) Church and State in Canada functioned in tandem with the colonial educational efforts of Euro-Canadians and the Catholic hierarchs. Oblate of Mary Immaculate and affiliated clergy had a strong presence with Bishop Gabriel Breynat (after which Breynat Hall was given its title) and Bishop Paul Piché leading initiatives there. The institutional aim was to facilitate the religious conversion of Indigenous children.
Church and State in the North
The accounts from former students, in addition to historical investigations, document severe abuse and harm documented in the residential schools of Fort Smith. Grandin College, though, has been remembered, as per the mixed moral history of Canadian society, for its positive mentorship and high-quality education. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission notes that Grandin College has one of the best reputations. Ethel Blondin‑Andrew credited the College for leadership training. It was founded in 1960 and became co‑educational in 1962, aiming to create future Aboriginal leaders. It was distinct from Breynat Hall when it came to sharing staff. Bishop Piché was appointed in 1959. He actively championed Grandin College for the OMI strategy for northern evangelization. Breynat Hall is remembered for significant abuses. Breynat Hall operated 1957‑1975. It was run by the Catholic Church, under federal control until 1969. Ottawa gave control to the Territorial government. The Church managed day‑to‑day operations with minimal federal oversight.
Grandin College, Breynat Hall, and JBT Compared
Survivors continue to speak out. JBT was known for mistreatment and discrimination, too. Jeannie Marie-Jewell, a Fort Smith Dene woman who became an NWT MLA, has recollections. She was made to attend it when her mother was sick. She described the supervision as ‘structured and strict,’ with discipline that some former students later characterized as excessive. Others and Marie-Jewell report witnessing sexual abuse and physical abuse at Breynat Hall. Others may have found positive mentorship and high-quality education. Some survivors had positive memories. However, Marie-Jewell stated, “At night, I remember I was too scared to look when the priests or the nuns took some of the kids out [of the dorm]. Many of these girls would return sobbing, visibly traumatized. So, what did they do with them at night? I spoke to a survivor who was there at the same time as me, and she said she was sexually abused there.” Fort Smith MLA Frieda Martselos called for replacing JBT, PWK High School, and Breynat Hall—the reason: their residential‑school legacies.
Investigations, Closure, and TRC Findings
Sexual abuse has been identified at Breynat Hall by multiple survivors. This came to light in the 1990s and 2000s during lawsuits and the TRC process. JBT’s former students recall a racially segregated and punitive environment. Girls were vulnerable and unprotected from some staff. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), in its Final Report (2015), documented widespread abuse in residential schools nationally. Fort Smith was no exception. Therefore, Breynat Hall survivors suffered harsh discipline, malnutrition, illness, and abuse at the hands of certain clergy and staff. Breynat closed in 1975 after a fire. This ended 18 years of operation.
Robert Carney’s Academic Legacy and Its Tensions
Decades later, Robert Carney reflected on the residential school system. He wrote an article in 1981 entitled “The Native-Wilderness Equation: Catholic and Other School Orientations in the Western Arctic.” He articulates a favorable interpretation of missionary schooling. Bob Carney died on December 9, 2009. He became an academic and remained a practising Catholic. He pursued graduate studies and wrote about Indigenous education policy. In his authored articles, he emphasized what he saw as favourable and benign facets of residential schooling. Widespread public documentation of residential school abuses emerged during the 1990s and 2000s. His writings stood in contrast to growing survivor testimony and documentation of widespread systemic harm. He emphasized increased literacy and the dedication of the missionaries rather than dwelling on the abuses. Now, as Prime Minister, Mark Carney is increasingly drawn into public discussion surrounding the legacy and work of his father at JBT. This legacy introduces additional historical dimensions to conversations about reconciliation, colonial history, and the role of government in addressing historical injustices.
Prime Minister Carney and the Politics of Reconciliation
On March 21, 2025, Prime Minister Carney met with the AFN, ITK, and MNC leaders. In the context of ongoing policy initiatives, he promised to double the Indigenous Loan‑Guarantee Program and have meaningful reconciliation in economic files. On February 7, 2024, a Federal Court Order extended free legal services for claimants for day-school settlements to July 13, 2025.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/20
How can secular journalism draw ethical parallels with the Council of Nicaea’s pursuit of truth and coherence?
Last Sunday, May 18th, 2025, in honour of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, I was invited by a Croatian Christian association via virtual conference to give a speech. The following is my contribution to the two hours conference.
Distinguished guests, esteemed colleagues,
With sincere gratitude, I accept the opportunity to address this gathering of international intellectuals, researchers, and religious scholars. This occasion is both solemn and celebratory, as we mark the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, a foundational moment in the theological and institutional development of Christianity. Though I come to you not as a theologian or confessional believer but as a humanist and a journalist grounded in secular principles, I approach this event with profound respect for its historical gravity and moral resonance.
The Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 CE, was not merely an ecclesiastical deliberation. It was a forged coherence in doctrinal chaos, a work to unify diverse communities under a shared conceptual framework. The idea was to assert that Truth must be sought collectively and with a seriousness of purpose. This ambition, couched in theological terms of the day, remarkably echoes the vocation of journalism.
Journalists operating in open, pluralistic societies such as Canada are entrusted with a public responsibility not unlike that of the Nicene Fathers. We are to confront genuine ambiguity, interrogate prevailing narratives, and seek the contours of Truth in the cacophony of competing claims. The mechanisms differ: evidence over exegesis, investigation over revelation. Even so, the ethical thrust remains analogous.
To practice journalism with integrity now is to swim against currents of misinformation, polarization, and sensationalism. We do not gather in councils. We ‘convene’ in newsrooms, editorial boards, and digital spaces. We have responsibility, because we shape public consciousness. Moreover, we often give voice and clarity to the sentiments already present within it.
We should strive to exercise discernment. We do not amplify what is popular but accurate and proportional. These may include aspects of fairness and justice. Some accurate and proportional truths reveal unfortunate realities: unfairness and injustice.
As a humanist, I operate within a worldview anchored in reason, empirical inquiry, and the inherent dignity of all persons. I do not profess metaphysical certainties, but I am not without conviction. Akin to Christian ethical traditions, the humanist lifestance esteems truthfulness, compassion, and defence of the vulnerable. These values should transcend doctrinal boundaries and offer common cause, particularly in an age needing principled dialogue.
There is an urgent need for rapprochement between religious and secular actors in the public sphere. The gates of Truth themselves are under siege, and some walls have been breached. We must not conflate difference with hostility. We should recognize our shared concerns and common moral aspirations. We converge around shared imperatives: human rights, peace, intellectual honesty, and epistemic humility.
Journalism functions as a moral cartography. It maps the terrain. It informs, yes. But it also describes, interprets, orients, and records. It buttresses the elements for building the future by creating the narratives for it.
The Council of Nicaea engaged in a similar project. It defined orthodoxy and stabilized the foundations of collective meaning. While I may not subscribe to the theological conclusions, I recognize the profundity of the aspiration: to reconcile Truth and conviction with coherence in community.
Today, as we reflect on the legacy of that council, let us reflect on the character of our institutions—both religious and secular. Are they upholding the Truth or succumbing to expedient falsehoods? Are they fostering understanding or estrangement? Ultimately, do they deserve the public’s trust?
These questions transcend tradition. We must continue to ask these questions rigorously and together.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to speak across differences and to dignify those differences on concerns of the intellectual Commons. In the space between faith and reason, as between meaning of music made between a note and a rest in a piano piece by Orlando Gibbons or Johannes Bach, we may yet rediscover that most elusive and essential of social goods: the Truth.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/19
How can journalism support clergy abuse victims while fostering reform and interfaith understanding without vilifying entire faith communities?
On March 9th, 2025, 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.
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)
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15
“Population growth can exacerbate environmental degradation when it increases pressure on natural resources and generates more waste and emissions. Sustainable development requires policies that balance population trends with economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity.”
World Population Prospects 2022, UN DESA
“Rapid population growth can hinder economic development, especially when it outpaces the provision of essential services and job creation. A stable population supports long-term sustainability.”
World Development Report 2007
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Population growth must be addressed within that context.”
Our Common Future (1987), Brundtland Commission Report
The 2024 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects (medium-variant series) describes 42 of the 193 UN member states, excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as in absolute demographic decline. The number increases to 48 if micro-states and non-sovereign areas are included.
The 1980s saw two countries enter absolute decline: Hungary and Bulgaria. In the 1990s, 14 countries entered population regression: Albania (1990), Estonia (1990), Latvia (1990), Romania (1990), Armenia (1991), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991), Croatia (1991), Lithuania (1991), Georgia (1992), Belarus (1993), Moldova (1993), Russia (1993), Ukraine (1993), and Serbia (1995).
Eight countries entered regression in the 2000s, slowing down the per-country rate: Barbados (2000), Dominica (2000), Saint Lucia (2000), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000), North Macedonia (2001), Cuba (2006), Andorra (2008), Portugal (2008), and Japan (2008).
Ten countries entered population decline in the 2010s: Greece (2010), Montenegro (2011), Poland (2012), Grenada (2012), Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013), Italy (2014), Slovenia (2014), Trinidad and Tobago (2014), Mauritius (2019), and Tonga (2019).
The 2020s saw seven countries enter this same pattern so far: South Korea (2020), China (2021), Slovakia (2021), Monaco (2022), San Marino (2022), Uruguay (2022), and Seychelles (2023). The chronology is as follows, represented as a consistent bullet point series:
1980s
Hungary (1980–maybe 1981-1982)
Bulgaria (1989)
1990s
Albania (1990)
Estonia (1990)
Latvia (1990)
Romania (1990)
Armenia (1991)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991)
Croatia (1991)
Lithuania (1991)
Georgia (1992)
Belarus (1993)
Moldova (1993)
Russia (1993)
Ukraine (1993)
Serbia (1995)
2000s
Barbados (2000)
Dominica (2000)
Saint Lucia (2000)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000)
North Macedonia (2001)
Cuba (2006)
Andorra (2008)
Portugal (2008)
Japan (2008)
2010s
Greece (2010)
Montenegro (2011)
Poland (2012)
Grenada (2012)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013)
Italy (2014)
Slovenia (2014)
Trinidad and Tobago (2014)
Mauritius (2019)
Tonga (2019)
2020s
South Korea (2020)
China (2021)
Slovakia (2021)
Monaco (2022)
San Marino (2022)
Uruguay (2022)
Seychelles (2023)
151 out of 193 member states are not shrinking. Sixty-three have peaked, 42 are shrinking — many only recently, and the rest are growing. Which is to state, based on known data, the apparent conclusion faces us.
The United Nations’ World Population Prospects 2024 approximates a peak of 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in The Lancet estimated a peak of 9.73 billion in 2064, and the Wittgenstein Centre’s 2023 estimate is a peak of 10.13 billion in 2080.
This means 29 years on the earlier extreme up to 64 years on the later extreme until the peak human population. The reality: The likelihood sits somewhere between those antipodean projected extremes. Population decline, as an absolute global issue, will become urgent about two generations from now if population growth is simply the idea.
This is both a that and a why issue. If you argue that population should increase without a reason, then you ignore the most important question: What quality of life is desired for all human beings with the population? This becomes a valuable question for the constituents of global eudaimonia. (Only from the perspective of homo sapiens.)
Having population growth for the sake of more people seems narrow, to say the least. If the only other option is the nihilistic, suicidal decline of the species, then the false dichotomy takes on an international, species-wide caricature. Another option is sustainable population growth. Experts have proposed this.
Until space mining becomes practicable, easily accessible resources on Earth remain finite. Sustainable population growth provides the benefits of resource balance, economic resilience, higher quality of life, environmental protection, social equity, and climate adaptability.
The most significant issue facing humanity is anthropogenic climate change. Climate systems respond to physical inputs, not human governance failures or political boundaries. Growth for growth’s sake is uninformed and valueless. Regression for the desired decline of humanity can be seen as nihilistic, another valuelessness.
Sustainable growth harbours the non-polyannish universalist values of human rights, empiricism of science, and compassion of a humane consideration of every person, young and old. Now, with humanistic values, if we want sustainable growth, what works?
Fundamentally, until synthetic means of human gestation exist, which remain scientifically feasible while complex, universal concern and evidence depict one approximate half of humanity: women, and trans people, with relevant reproductive mechanics intact.
For those who want to have children and for those who want to support their free, uncoerced decision to have children, population dynamics tells us some things: equal parental leave, affordable childcare, flexible family-friendly workplaces, support for dual-earner families, reproductive autonomy and healthcare access, and shared domestic responsibilities.
Another social factor is valuing family and children. Some conservative and libertarian commentators have proposed this. That’s true. However, what better way to support this through funding, policy, and role alignment than by establishing a comprehensive program grounded in the reality of shared values—values that only appear to be superficially or paradoxically opposed?
However, children and families are highly personal and individual choices. Some people believe relationships are not for them. Children are not for them. Thus, the messaging should be informed, culturally appropriate, and targeted in an evidence-based manner to those who want either or both, then providing a culture and infrastructure environment in which the sustainable growth models can flourish, while targeting anthropogenic climate change and other problems.
A values-driven, evidence-based approach to population policy can foster a sustainable and worthwhile world in which people who want children are empowered to have them and humanity grows in balance with nature.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15
Racism fueled Nazi ideology and policies. The Nazis viewed the world as being divided up into competing inferior and superior races.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
At its core, the Nazi worldview was racist and biological, positing that the so-called ‘Aryan’ race – primarily the North Europeans – was the superior race of humanity.
Yad Vashem – The World Holocaust Remembrance Center
The German Nazis were decidedly far-Right, not leftwing. To call the Left “Nazis,” or frame the German Left as Nazis, when the enormous weight of corpses and contemporary political analyses note the German Nazis as Right-wing, congratulations, you have taken on the tactics of abusers: Gaslighting.
They merely had “Socialist” in the name. They used the language to co-opt working-class support. Then they aggressively persecuted leftists–i.e., trade unionists, socialists, communists–while advocating for anti-Communism, authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism, traditionalism, and xenophobia.
Facts of history and the dead matter, not scoring political points for personal gain. To more recent history, German intelligence agencies ranked the AfD with neo-Nazi groups as a Gefahr für die Demokratie (danger to democracy).
May 2025…: German intelligence agencies connected the Afd to extreme-right ideology. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) report stressed AfD’s ethnisch-abstammungsmäßiges Volksverständnis(ethnically defined concept of “the people”) as violating democratic order, seeking to exclude entire groups. AfD characterized as a “racist and anti-Muslim” organization, e.g., slogans like Abschieben schafft Wohnraum(“deportation creates housing”) and Jeder Fremde mehr in diesem Land ist einer zu viel (“each more foreigner is one too many”). These are listed as evidence of dehumanizing language. BfV President Thomas Haldenwang called this “a good day for democracy.” A history exists here, too.
March 2022: a Cologne court upheld the BfV’s classification of the AfD and its youth wing as a Beobachtungsobjekt (Verdachtsfall) (suspected extremist organization), finding ausreichende tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte für verfassungsfeindliche Bestrebungen– “sufficient factual indications of anti-constitutional aims.” The BfV 1,100-page report filled the extremism criteria.
Late 2023: Bavarian prosecutors opened investigations into newly elected AfD MP Daniel Halemba for possible use of Nazi symbols. He previously belonged to a student fraternity raided for Nazi paraphernalia.
December, 2023: Several state Verfassungsschutz offices flagged AfD branches. Saxony’s domestic intelligence classified the Saxony AfD as gesichert rechtsextremistisch. Saxony’s VS president Dirk-Martin Christian said, “…an der rechtsextremistischen Ausrichtung der AfD Sachsen bestehen keine Zweifel mehr”(“there is no longer any doubt about AfD Saxony’s right-extremist orientation”) The party held typische völkisch-nationalistische Positionen (“typical folk-nationalist positions”) and used common anti-Semitic conspiracy language. These mirrored Nazi-era rhetoric. Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt earlier flagged local AfD branches as extremist as well.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) called the intelligence review legal and independent, resulting in a 1,100-page internal report being apolitical. The new classification permitted intensified surveillance, including deployment of informants and communication interception.
May, (2024). German courts have penalized AfD members for Nazi-linked speech. The Halle state court convicted Thuringia AfD leader Björn Höcke for using the SA slogan “Alles für Deutschland!”
2025: Two Saarland AfD local councillors liked a Facebook post celebrating Hitler’s birthday. Authorities launched a Volksverhetzung (incitement) probe and party expulsion proceedings.
Leading German politicians likened the AfD to fascism and Nazi extremism. SPD Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned protesters in 2024: Wer die AfD aus Protest wählt, dem müsse klar sein, dass sie Faschisten wählten. (“Anyone who votes AfD out of protest must be aware that they are voting for fascists.”) SPD leader Lars Klingbeil accused AfD co-leader Alice Weidel of heading a rechtsextreme Partei… die AfD ist durchsetzt auch mit Nazis in Europa. (“the AfD is also filled with Nazis in Europe.”) Former SPD head Sigmar Gabriel compared hearing AfD rhetoric to his Nazi-father: Alles, was die [AfD] erzählen, habe ich schon gehört — im Zweifel von meinem eigenen Vater, der … ein Nazi war. Green and Linke politicians made similar warnings. Expert commentators warned of Nazi parallels.
German officials and courts drew a direct line between AfD rhetoric and Nazi-style ideology. Official reports cite AfD policy goals, mass deportation slogans to ethno-nationalist immigration stances, as incompatible with Germany’s constitution.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15
Ed Fredkin (1934-2023), deceased MIT Professor and Caltech Fairchild Distinguished Scholar, can be attributed as one of the founders of Digital Philosophy. Others include Konrad Zuse and Stephen Wolfram. It is an interdisciplinary endeavour between computer science, physics, and philosophy, fundamentally grounded on computation. Universe operates as a computational system. Fredkin believed all physical processes are derivable from data processing, hence digital physics rather than physics.
Fredkin worked on computer vision, business ventures, and chess programming. Digital Philosophy sees the universe as digital. A set of pancomputationalism and digital physics. Both are distinct, but relate to one another. A discrete finite system run by rules on computation. Fredkin conjectures: All manifest energy, matter, space, and time, are bits.
Fredkin believe in no infinites, no continuities. A universe integer-grounded and finite. The evolution of the physical processes happens as transformations from state to state is the hypothesis of Fredkin. Each state as a whole slice of the cosmic worldline. Disputable early orientations include determinism, reductionism, and mechanism.
The universe functions with each next state following from prior states. Complex phenomena are emergent phenomena from simpler fundaments. Reality as a mechanism operable as a machine with predictable rules.
Fredkin supported the ideas with reversible computing and cellular automata. He stated:
Digital mechanics predicts that for every continuous symmetry of physics there will be some microscopic process that violates that symmetry.
And:
The appearance of a single truly random event is absolutely incompatible with a strong law of conservation of information.
Cellular automata come in a variety. The one developed by Fredkin was called the SALT (Six-state Asynchronous Logic Tiling) family of cellular automata. These are reversible automata capable of ‘universal computation.’ These models simulate digital rules.
He invented the Fredkin gate, able to perform computations without losing energy. Some of energy-efficient computing is based on this. This has implications for contemporary and upcoming artificial intelligence systems.
He proposed, in a manner within these developments, the finitude of the natural order. Fredkin asserted the universe is a giant automaton with the possibility of quantum phenomena emergent from digital processes too. Philosophy of physics, in this developmental trend, can be interpreted as philosophy of digital physics.
When made practical, we unite the Digital Philosophy into digital physics. One deals with concepts, relations, and theories, and the other with operations, functions, and applications.
Reversible computing has arrived and advanced, particularly in reduction of energy waste per compute. The Vaire Computing chip achieved a many-fold increase in energy efficiency. A possible direct developmental inspiration from the conceptual framework of Fredkin’s work, so from digital philosophy into digital physics.
Some critiques exist of the ideas despite the practical applications and consistency with contemporary ideas of computation and information:
If all is computation, the idea is too broad, so meaningless.
It needs more empirical support, so it has reduced scientific credibility.
Discrete models are inconsistent with continuous models of quantum mechanics or relativity.
Some see the ideas as naive while others question validity due to Fredkin’s computational background.
His ideas left a lasting mark on modern physics and Digital Philosophy continues to impact facets of computation, physics, and philosophy. Others existed in this space and others are extant.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/13
The leading cause of global maternal death: Postpartum hemorrhage. One woman dies every six minutes. In 2023, 700 women died per day from preventable pregnancy‑related causes. Nigeria’s maternal‑mortality ratio is more than 800 per 100,000 live births. Obstetric hemorrhage is a principal driver. Timely transfusion reduces hemorrhage and fatality by up to 90%. (Exact quantification is complex.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret biblical injunctions uniquely. The “abstain from blood” injunction means a biblical prohibition of transfusion of whole blood and its primary components. Transfusion is a sin. Jehovah’s Witnesses can be disfellowshipped. Members may choose to select minor derivatives. Adult Witnesses can carry advance‑directive cards refusing blood. Clinicians sit in complex medical and legal situations in medical emergencies.
May 10, 2025, 33-year-old Victoria Paris died of postpartum hemorrhage. She was not a Jehovah’s Witness. She died in the Standard Maternity Hospital, Borikiri, Port Harcourt. The owner, a purported Jehovah’s Witness, refused a blood transfusion. The Rivers State Government reportedly sealed the facility within 24 hours.
A full investigation is pending. A national debate ensued on imposing religious convictions when lives are at stake. Paris was pregnant with a fifth child and experienced abdominal pain. Relatives took her to the Standard Maternity Hospital in Borokiri.
She had delivered children there earlier. Surgeons performed an emergency cesarean section. She lost blood. She needs atransfusion. Chris Adams, the husband or brother-in-law (reports differ), claimed the proprietor of the hospital refused to order blood.
Their version of the Jehovah’s Witness faith forbade this procedure. During surgery, the power failed. This may delay care. Family members transferred Paris to a second facility. She was declared dead on arrival.
On May 11, 2025,the Rivers State Anti-Quackery Committee conducted an unscheduled inspection led by Dr. Vincent Wachukwu from the Ministry of Health. The theatre was sealed, and staff were ordered to cease operations.
The Committee claimed “suspected professional negligence and breach of the Rivers State Private Health‑Care Facilities Regulation Law.” They claimed: Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) and police homicide detectives would join the investigation.
Victim‑support groups are pressing for criminal negligence or manslaughter charges. Permitted in Nigerian law if a “person’s omission to act” causes death (Criminal Code §303). The clinic is licensed as a Level B private maternity centre at №2 Captain Amangala Street, Borikiri.
The Anti-Quackery team cautioned the same facility in 2024 for inadequate record-keeping and was placed on probationary status. Nigerian guidelines (MDCN 2016) require physicians to provide every reasonable emergency measure. Personal beliefs should not interfere.
Refusal can mean harm. This can constitute professional misconduct. Courts compelled transfusions for minors, upholding adult autonomy. The doctor refused Paris. There was no documented patient consent, thus raising liability questions.
With files from Elanhub, Legit NG, OtownGist, The Trumpet NG, Intel Region, GistReel, HettysMedia, Rivers State Anti‑Quackery Committee (X/Instagram), WHO fact‑sheets and academic articles on Jehovah’s Witness transfusion ethics.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/13
History as a bridge-builder with a centrist social-justice activism and doctrinal conservatism. He has an Augustinian communitarian ethos. His platforms: synodality, Christocentric evangelization over abstraction, and inclusion, with traditionalism on life, marriage, and ordained ministry. He uses pastoral anti-clericalism against isolationist leadership, while advocating interreligious dialogue and big tent-ism focused on humanitarianism over culture wars. He champions broad participation with secular‑religious cooperation and compassionate outreach. The Test: Translation of ideals into transparent, effective governance with accountability following from rhetorical closeness.
2012
“Sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel,” e.g., “[the] homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”
2019
“We reject cover-up and secrecy, it does a lot of harm, because we have to help the people who have suffered from wrongdoing.”
2019
“I think they should do it, if there is abuse against a minor by a priest… On behalf of the Church, we want to tell people that if there was any offense, if they suffered or are victims of a priest’s wrongdoing, they should come and report it, to act for the good of the Church, the person, and the community.”
~2015–2023
“The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.”
2023
“We are often worried about teaching doctrine, but we risk forgetting that our first duty is to communicate the beauty and joy of knowing Jesus.”
2023
“A fundamental element of the portrait of a bishop is being a pastor, capable of being close to the members of the community.”
2023
“Silence is not an answer. Silence is not the solution. We must be transparent and honest, we must accompany and assist the victims, because otherwise their wounds will never heal.”
2023
“The fundamental thing for every disciple of Christ is humility.”
2023
“Being a synodal Church that knows how to listen to everyone is the way not only to live the faith personally, but also to grow in true Christian brotherhood.”
2023
“Above all, a bishop must proclaim Jesus Christ and live the faith so that the faithful see in his witness an incentive to them to want to be an ever more active part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded.”
2023
“Something that needs to be said also is that ordaining women — and there’s been some women that have said this interestingly enough — ‘clericalizing women’ doesn’t necessarily solve a problem, it might make a new problem.”
2024
“The bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom.”
2024
“Called authentically to be humble, to be close to the people he serves, to walk with them, to suffer with them.”
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/11
Foundation of the British Columbia Firmament
The Father of British Columbia, Sir James Douglas, is worshipped in the community where I grew up. Not for nothing, he had achievements, but he had a mixed history in numerous ways. He had a “mixed history” as HBC Chief Factor and colonial governor. He granted monopolistic privileges to his company and family.
This mixed public office and private profit. He imposed property-based voting qualifications, excluding full representation. He set forth unfair First Nations treaties. The Douglas Treaties were signed on blank sheets, with terms inserted afterward—an unusual practice. Unilaterally, these were later signed, resulting in Indigenous signatories having land cessions that were not fully known.
He had a heavy-handed gold rush policy with licensing schemes and delayed enforcement during the Fraser Canyon conflict. These failed to protect Indigenous communities. Violence and village burnings ensued. He recruited black Californian settlers for political loyalty. It was opportunistic rather than principled efforts for the enfranchisement of blacks. He was from Guyana. A fascinating history to learn about one’s happenstance of contingent past circumstances: his contemporary presentation is not an exercise in false equivalence. It is about a united duality of positive and negative valence.
The living recent history reflects this mixed history in Fort Langley, out of Langley, with the crossovers between hipster intellectual farmers and well-educated, well-off Evangelical Christians, Trinity Western University, and the political shenanigans of Christians here impacting the federal level of the country. I wanted to cover some of this controversial recent history, as having a singular reference for some of the township’s more noteworthy shenanigans. For clarity, I speak as a former member of one of the heritage committees of an association in Fort Langley and another for the Township of Langley. I can say, “Heritage matters to Langleyites.” As an elder Euro-Canadian lady told me on the committee, a fellow committee member, it was in a sharp snarl once at a meeting, “I know who you are.” These were not isolated events throughout my life while growing up and through there. So it goes.
The contemporary Evangelical Christian story in Fort Langley began with a sexual misconduct allegation of the longest-standing university president in Canadian history: 2005-2006 with former university president Neil Snider. I would rather this not be the case, but it is the history. Something worth repeating.
2005–2015: Institutional Unease and Image Discipline
He had the longest tenure of any Canadian university president—32 years–and greatly grew Trinity Western University (TWU) in its early decades. That is a testament to his prowess as an administrator of resources and an inspirer of people at the time. In their terminology, he had the Holy Spirit in him.
Unfortunately, an uncomfortable truth was his retirement in 2006 following sexual misconduct allegations. Internal reports from TWU and contemporary media reviews questioned the administrative decisions around this. The community is embarrassed by it and tries to cover it up. I understand that part. It happens with clergy-related abuse cases too: Institutional protection. However, as one colleague’s mom who worked with him said to me, in a way to excuse it, “He was lonely,” because either his wife died or he was divorced. I leave considerations of the elasticity of excuse-making to the reader.
ChristianWeek’s “Trinity Western Resolves Human Rights Complaint” documented the 2005 human rights complaint against Snider. The settlement impacted subsequent policy reviews. Former faculty interviews showed early signs of institutional unease. Evangelical leaders have undergone these scandals.
A CAUT Report, “Report of an Inquiry Regarding Trinity Western University,” examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the religious Covenant. You can see TWU’s current Community Covenant. William Bruneau and Thomas Friedman examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the Covenant and possible impacts on academic hiring and free speech. Case studies and personal accounts of faculty are incorporated. It is a referenced report in academic discussions on religion and academia in Canada.
2005-2015 was a busy few years. Ex-administrators and archival internal memos showed dissent regarding mandatory religious practices. Similar controversies happen in religious universities in Canada, all private, all Christian. The largest is Evangelical, and the largest is TWU, in Langley. After trying to get many interviews with professors and dissenting students in the community, the vast majority declined over many years of journalistic efforts, and a few agreed to a coffee conversation to express opinions. Most opinions dissent from the norm of TWU while affirming the difficulties for the faith with these straight-and-narrow executives, who are not reined in, reign with impunity, and rain neglect on their community’s inner Other.
2016–2018: The Covenant and the Courts
Circa 2016, some online commentators mentioned how they felt “bad for the kids that realize they’re not straight” at TWU as “Coming out is hard,” and “it’s crazy that people still want to go to this school.” A former student acknowledged some student support for LGBTI peers while warning many feel “quite ostracized” by an “unspoken aura” repressing non-Christian views. An LGBTI student may have to “repress their urges based on a stupid covenant.”
Other online forums include a former student union leader noting the “community covenant is outdated” even by 2013, while another urged the university to rethink the Covenant. Saying there is a “thriving rape culture,” “I know more than five girls who were raped [at TWU], who didn’t report it because they believed they would be shamed and not taken seriously.”
Maclean’s in “The end of the religious university?” talked about the long-standing interest in the national debate around religious mandates in higher education and the central role of TWU. These controversies about academic freedom following Snider’s resignation would echo some other community elements there. BBC News commented that Canada approved a homophobic law school in 2013. This would eventually evolve poorly for TWU and reflect terribly on the surrounding community.
Xtra Magazine’s“The Painful Truth About Being Gay at Canada’s Largest Christian University” featured a series of robust testimonies from current and former students on systemic discrimination. The magazine also examined campus surveys, student blogs, and some student activist groups, with a case study of academic panels addressing LGBTI issues within religious institutions. The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision on TWU’s Law School accreditation in 2018. It was analyzed by legal journals and cited in academic papers. Those looked to religious mandates and the tensions with legal equality.
Knowing some minority facets of dynamics in this community, many will slander others and lie to protect themselves, particularly their identity as represented via the incursion of Evangelical Orthodoxy into the community via the university. This small township’s controversies went to the Supreme Court of Canada. They lost in a landslide decision, 7-2. The Vancouver Sun had various coverage, with international critiques comparing TWU’s controversy to European and Australian scandals. Regardless, TWU brought global spotlight on a small township, a tiny town.
Global human rights organizations gave commentary. TWU dropped the Community Covenant as mandatory, but only for students, while staff, faculty, and administration maintained it. A TWU student asserted on Reddit:
TWU student here. The only two reasons why the Board of Governors chose to drop the Covenant for students is because a) The recent court ruling, and b) Their other professional programs (counselling, nursing, and teaching) received letters from their respective accrediting bodies which threatened to pull accreditation unless the Covenant was amended or discarded.
TWU’s decision to make signing the Covenant voluntary for students has nothing to do with morality or human rights, but everything to do with their business model. Keep in mind, the faculty still must sign the pledge, and TWU’s mission and mandate of producing “godly Christian leaders” has not changed.
The next era was 2019-2021.
2019–2021: Cultural Stagnation Despite Legal Losses
Xtra Magazine in “I am queer at Trinity Western University. What will it take for my university to listen to me?” provided a more individual story. Carter Sawatzky wrote, “TWU’s decision in 2018 to make the Covenant non-mandatory for students also did not magically change the discriminatory treatment of queer people. After TWU’s 2018 Supreme Court loss, many folks, including myself, had hoped that TWU would finally demonstrate that it can be rooted in faith and radically loving and welcoming. Instead, TWU has doubled down on its social conservatism, at the expense of queer students like myself.” An international scandal and Supreme Court defeat did not change the culture or the school. That is instructive.
Langley is a township where I am told the murder of the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was merciful. An older gentleman saying, “Her murder was an act of mercy.” Langley Advance Times in “Private Langley University rejects LGBTQ+ event request” reported denying an event request, One TWU Stories Night, for an LGBTI group, One TWU. Carter Sawatzky said, “We are sharing our stories, which I think should be a non-controversial thing… It is not a contradiction. You can be queer and Christian… Many people come to TWU and have never heard an LGBTQ story.” That is a reasonable statement. A One TWU piece published on its site claims homophobia is rampant on campus.
CBC News reported on the manslaughter conviction of a TWU security guard. “Former guard at B.C. university found guilty of manslaughter” reported a Fall 2020 event involving “a man wearing all black” who wandered into student residences, rifling through their things. Security guard Howard Glen Hill hit the man, Jack Cruthers Hutchison, “in the head, pulled his hair and spat on him.” Police arrived: Hill was “in a neck restraint, limp and unresponsive. He died in the hospital two days later.” Hutchison was charged with manslaughter. TWU’s statement: “The university has no comment on the court ruling. TWU’s commitment has always been to safeguard our campus community, and we continue to provide a safe place of learning for all our students.”
Langley Union, in “Trinity Western University President’s Son Linked to Prolific White Nationalist Account,” investigated digital forensic evidence of the son of the President of TWU linked to a White Nationalist online account. The son’s actions should be considered separate from the father’s and the institutions. However, they are striking news.
The accounts claimed, among other assertions, “I believe in a white future. An Aryan future. A future where my children will make Indian Bronson shine our shoes. Where brown people cannot secure a line of credit, Black people pick cotton. We will win – this is what we fight for,” and “I am a colonialist. I make no effort to hide this. I believe in worldwide white supremacy.”
The Nelson Star reported in “‘Alt-right’ group uses Fort Langley historic site as meeting place” on the use of the local pub in Fort Langley as a meeting place for a public, so known and self-identified White Nationalist group. As one former boss noted, “I don’t know what is wrong with we the white race.” That is a sentiment, not an organization, however. This microcosm reflects a broader history of Canadian sociopolitics with race and religion, some Evangelicals and occasional allegations of racialism if not racism.
TWU’s policy is Inclusive Excellence. “We aim to promote a consistent atmosphere of inclusion and belonging at TWU by establishing a shared commitment to diversity and equity founded in the gospel’s truth. Christ came to save, reconcile, and equip all people (Rev. 7:9), and the incredible array of gifts God has given us is evidence of his creativity, beauty, and love of diversity,” it states. An administrator is reported to have said informally that the event was ‘not in line with Evangelical values.’
In the States, a trend in international Evangelical higher education is here too. Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2000, involving federal funding and accreditation debates. In Australia, Christian colleges faced scrutiny for policies excluding LGBTI+ students and staff. Faith-based codes and equality laws produced tensions in the United Kingdom, though less prominently than in Canada. Those American churches want to influence Canada in Indigenous communities. Some Canadian churches have Ojibwe pastors, for example.
A Medium (Xtra) post entitled “The painful truth about being gay at Canada’s largest Christian university” commented on the experience of a gay student, Jacob.’ As peers messaged Jacob on suspicion of him being gay, “We hate everything about you and you better watch your back because we are going to kill you on your way to school.” At TWU ‘Jacob,’ said, “I loved the community here so much that I did not want to jeopardize those relationships.” That is called a closet.
Another student, Corben, from Alberta at TWU, said, “My parents, I think, kind of wanted Trinity to be for me sort of like reparative therapy, which is why they would only help financially with this school.” Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put forth a move to end Conversion Therapy, a discredited pseudotherapy to change sexual orientation and gender identity. Conversion therapy has been banned in Malta (2016), Germany (2020), France (2022), Canada (2022), New Zealand (2022), Iceland (2023), Spain (2023), Mexico (2024), Greece (2024), and Belgium (2024). That is only TWU, however. The community of Langley, specifically Fort Langley, where I was raised, is substantively linked to this place.
Langley Advance Times in “Blackface photo in 2017 Chilliwack yearbook sparks apology from school principal” reported on a blackface incident at a local school. It was part of a “mock trial.” So, bad taste in community, and the excuse for Snider’s example will likely do the same in this case over term. There are several cases of sexual misconduct cases in British Columbia and Canada. The Archdiocese of Vancouver was the first in Canada to publicly name clergy involved in sexual abuse and decades of abuse. At the same time, other prominent cases have arisen, including Michael Conaghan, Damian Lawrence Cooper, and Erlindo Molon, highlighting a pattern of clerical sexual exploitation and inadequate accountability in British Columbia. I would rather this not be the case, but it is the history.
In 2022, a TWU dean resigned amid pressure over her work on gender issues. One Reddit–and all Reddit commentary should be considered additions, while anecdotal at best–user described how TWU leaders had “tried to make her leave her position as dean because she… stated she was an lgbtq+ ally,” then issued bureaucratic statements of grief based on her departure.
Living there, these excuses likely flowed through social media. At the same time, community intimidation happens, too. It is bad for the community image and bad for the business. People have an interest in narrative morphing. As gay students find at TWU, and as outsiders as others find in the general community, it is mostly not about moral stances, but about image maintenance and business interests. Money matters because it is a well-to-do area of the country and a wealthy nation worldwide. There is regular township nonsense where the Fort Langley Night Market gets closed down due to vandalism and alcohol.
Ongoing online conversations about TWU degree quality continue, “So before those say ‘it’s an immigration scam’, it’s not and is essentially useless towards immigrating/coming to Canada. With that said, most of TWU’s programs are also useless to use towards immigrating, even if studied in person, because any non-degree program from a private school does not allow one to apply for a PGWP. However, it offers a couple of degree programs that can result in a PGWP.”
Brandon Gabriel and Eric Woodward have been at loggerheads for at least a decade. If you look at the original history, this reflects another fight between an Indigenous leader and the colonial presence in its history. Now, they are a local artist and developer, respectively. Woodward has a camp of supporters for development and a camp of detractors. Another mixed figure in the contemporary period of Langley. Over development concerns and pushback, Woodward got a building painted pink in protest at one point. It is a serious township history full of a minority of loud, silly people imposing their nonsense on a smaller group of innocent bystanders.
Whether LGBTI discrimination ensconced at its university, a blackface principal, homophobia, this isn’t unusual in a way. A constellation of apparent White Nationalist superminority undercurrents popping up, and with worship of a founder in a democracy who was a mixed-race colonialist timocrat married to a Cree woman, it’s a story of a Canadian town and municipality. A tale of how foundational myths, when left unexamined, morph into social realities.
Welcome to Langley–a light introduction: Home, sorta.
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
“advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
“mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
“opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
“eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
“clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
“vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
“Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09
Therapy and Politics
If therapy can be a vehicle for ideology, then clinicians risk repeating past abuses.
The article “The Danger of Decolonization Therapy” by Miri Bar-Halpern and Dean McKay, published on April 8, 2025, in Jewish Syndicate News, addressed concerns within the mental health field. The focus was on the partial politicization of some facets of therapeutic spaces.
Spotlight on Decolonization Therapy
Decolonization Therapy is a psychological approach working on lasting impacts of colonialism by centring Indigenous knowledge, challenging Eurocentric models, and integrating social justice. This does not necessarily mean cultural psychology or Indigenous psychology: To acknowledge some systemic issues is different than imposed ideological stances ignoring principles of impartiality. The emphasis for Bar-Halpern and McKay is a particular strain and risk in this framework of therapy, implicitly. They argued decolonization therapy lacks sufficient rigorous scientific validation unlike Dialectical Behavioural Therapy or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
It can erase the core identity of some Jewish clients vis-a-vis Jewish identity and Zionism, and may retraumatize some Jewish clients. They make a call-to-action for the rejection of ideological coercion in therapy, protecting Jewish clinicians from discrimination, demanding high empirical standards of practices, addressing some nuanced antisemitism in mental-health training, and advocating for Jewish clients in this space. Naturally, colonialism is a factor in histories and people groups more recently affected remain extant. That’s not the question of concern here, but remains a question of concern in other conversations.
I would agree with the thrust of the arguments, while pumping the brakes modestly.
A Cautionary Tale: Sluggish Schizophrenia
I thought about this over a coffee one morning, whether to pursue analysis or not. I had another coffee and jotted some brain droppings down. I had some time today to synthesize some reflections. The piece made me think, rethink, question myself, et cetera. A reflection from a doctoral counselling psychologist colleague with Metis heritage, if that counts in context on prior politicization of an intended apolitical therapeutic space after reading the same article by Bar-Halpern and McKay:
In the mid-twentieth century, Soviet psychologists invented a category called “sluggish schizophrenia,” which they used to classify political dissenters as mentally ill. Psychology continues to be misused to push political agendas. Ethical psychologists do not push their views on their clients. Psychotherapy is designed to assist the client in expanding their worldviews and making their lives more satisfying by using self-experimentation and reason. Even if a client decides she wishes to forgo her volitional abilities and become a robot waiting for the command, we explore the likely consequences with the client. However, as long as the client is aware of the consequences of their actions, we support them. Here is an ethical dilemma we discussed in my early training: Do we help Al Capone become more self-actualized in his actions?
Decolonization therapy may well do this, not from Eastern Europe but from North America if pushing ideologies, whether anti-Capitalist or anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism in most cases, while pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist political pushes in an intended apolitical space is wrong. That is the root: “Psychology continues to be misused to push political agendas.” No specification of alignment or a re-stipulation of the foundational ethics of therapy: impartiality, or minimize bias and maximize neutrality.
From Theory to the Couch: Ethical Dilemmas
As the article surmises, the majority of Jewish people identify as Zionists and/or support Israel. On a personal note, I share the last name of the Founder of Reform Judaism, Israel Jacobson. However, I do not know if there is any family history or patrilineal or matrilineal relation. My family received an award for harbouring at least one Jewish couple for several years for safety and protection on the Dutch side during World War II. Do I get a cookie? No.
My biases: Let us say, for the sake of argument, the likely background of no family relation, I “identify” per contemporary, in vogue, verbiage, or “am” a “Zionist” in a manner of being a ‘Palestinist’–not an abnormal position in international documentation. I wrote a book project, out of In-Sight Publishing, of in-depth professional, expert-level interviews from 2019-2021 on precisely the subject matter of Israel-Palestine, entitled On Israel-Palestine: 2019-2021(2024).
Identity, Data, and the Risk of Erasure
Those State terms came from agreements following the Balfour Declaration. The vote for Palestine’s non-member observer State status on November 29, 2012, at the United Nations cemented this further within international voting records. UN Resolution A/RES/67/19 stipulated, “The General Assembly… Decide to accord Palestine non-member observer state status in the United Nations…”
It passed with 138 votes in favour, nine against, and 41 abstentions. Therefore, we have Palestine as a non-member observer State status of the UN, under observer state Status, on equal footing with the Holy See, as Israel is a Member State with voting privileges. At least, in either case, it could change, in theory.
However, it is so overwhelmingly supported by the international community for a State of Palestine under the Question of Palestine and for a State of Israel, simply unreasonable to put in the fore a question about the member state status of either. I denounce anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, and antisemitic bigotry. Many others do, too.
The fact that these become controversial stances, as generically positioned and further utilized to politicize a professionally intended vulnerable population and apolitical interpersonal professional space, raises serious questions under codes of ethics. Therapeutic spaces are intended as apolitical spaces for terms set by clients with therapists. To politicize them violates the premise, they are not complex considerations.
The symmetry fits structurally with Conversion Therapy in their positionality, but is disjunct in harm type and degree. Based on the article numbers, Zionism is something 85% of Jewish people support. However, based on other sources from the United States and in the United Kingdom, these may be inflated numbers, but not too much. Others range the numbers from 63% to 82% regarding caring about Zionism, with lesser strength in support, while still adhering.
As of 2020, UK data from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research state 73% of U.S. Jews feel emotionally attached to Israel, while 63% identify as Zionists, down from 72% a decade earlier. While Pew’s 2021 data show 82% of American Jews feel at least some attachment to Israel, while 48% under 30 feel “very” or “somewhat” attached to Israel, 51% of Jews 50 and older caring about Israel is essential to Jewish identity. Overall 2/3rds express some degree of connection to Israel. Attachment does not equate to support. Connection and care can mean Zionism to many. Therefore, most adhere to styles of Zionism or connection, care, and/or support for Israel.
Parallels and Hypotheticals
Similarly on issues of gender and sexual minorities, LGBTI+, using terminology via the UN with the LGBTI Core Group rather than narrowing within common American parlance, is an inherent identity of development. Gender and sexual orientation seem to flow outwards, akin to the development of a snowflake and a sociological category. It is not a position of necessary advocacy to proclaim: “I am a bisexual man.” It is fabulous and factual, but not a necessary point of advocacy in the manner of Zionism or argument around historicity or a claim to some biblically (mostly) unjustified narrative. On the other hand, antisemitism has been around for centuries. This can count as an early sprouting of it in a professional space.
Within a few decades, people’s lives targeted can be impacted. Conversion Therapywas established and systematized for decades prior to the 1990s controversies. Conversion Therapy, or reparative therapy, is a practice aimed at changing sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Peter Gajdics, the author of The Inheritance of Shame, was a victim. So, that case is different, not in spirit but in development. Eventually, I could see a symmetry if others were not critically inquiring into it and pushing back against it. It is critically confronted, not yet 2055 or 2065, either, so not enough room for decades of entrenchment.
So, we can at least step forward with a strong foot. This potato is too hot. Journalists do not want to cover this. To critique Israeli policy, “Hooray, stop the genocide!”, and “You are an antisemite.” To critique Hamas murders on October 7 and hostage-taking, and leftwing unwitting antisemitism, “Stop the clock on the Woke, you go, Mr.!”, and “Deport the lunatic leftwing radicals and terrorists on our campuses!”
If they are on the Right sociopolitically, then they might be afraid of leftist harassment and cancellation tactics. If they are on the Left, then they do not want to become another Norman Finkelstein case, and fear some wings of the Israeli lobby and the American State. To the more significant point, though, while no mainstream therapy formally pathologizes Zionism, a framing as inherently oppressive without acknowledging its ethnic and religious dimensions risks veering into symbolic antisemitism. This could destabilize a client’s sense of safety and/or identity.
If they are like Mr. Huckabee and want a single super-state for apocalyptic Christian Zionism for the Second Coming of Christ, then that is a different story on hermeneutical antisemitism if that is their wheelhouse. One obvious thought experiment to me. Can we reverse this claim? Just forgetting any UN record, rights abuses by the Israeli state or the Palestinians against Israelis, etc., theoretically, one could assert the American far-right ethnic supremacist talking point about white genocide.
As a case in illustrative hyperbole, based on extreme viewpoints held in parts by many, “Looking at the mass immigration, look at the Kalergi-Coudenhove plan in action for the ‘Eurasian-Negroid race of the future,’ the Rothschilds own the moon, etc.; we are being colonized–watch out for the space lasers (TM) targeting the last of the pure Aryan Race.” These form a White ethnic American State idea.
They pose this: anyone criticizing or arguing against it is considered colonizing. We need to decolonize the therapy of anti-White Statism. It is a professional duty for those in our care to decolonize from anti-White State ideas. People would take offence at this. Why not the reverse? They could even have APA poster presentations pointing to the prefrontal cortex, vaguely identifying anti-White Statism as a mental illness needing a decolonization therapy style of approach as was done with Zionism.
Restoring Neutrality: Evidence and Safeguards
We risk undermining the neutrality and integrity of psychological practice, and are moving towards this more pervasively based on this. Jewish identity is multifaceted, is not a mental illness when linked to Zionism, and involves self-determination. Decolonization Therapy mostly lacks sufficient rigorous empirical support. However, it is grounded in cultural psychology and values ideology over evidence, while inverting its duty not to harm by retraumatizing some Jewish patients, alienating them further.
It does not have the same systematic and comprehensive empirical support as standardized therapeutic techniques, including Dialectical Behavioural Therapy. Therapists, thus, can buy into antisemitic tropes around genocide and fascist stereotypes, labelling Jewish clients as oppressors, politicize therapy with anti-Zionist ideologies, and make therapeutic spaces a place to intimidate others. I submit that if a social justice framework in therapy retraumatizes and alienates clientele, then there will be less social justice and more anti-social injustice frameworks for therapy.
Therapy as Sanctuary, Not Battleground
Dr. Jennifer Mullan, the Founder of Decolonizing Therapy, most succinctly stated, “There’s no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom,” or “To begin to consider and implement practices that support politicizing and shifting our organizational and interpersonal perspectives.”
To contrast, the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Fourth Edition), under Ethical Standards of Principle of Integrity in Relationships, stipulated the importance of the need “to be as objective and unbiased as possible in their… service.” The British Psychological Society in Code of Ethics and Conductlinked reason or rationality to impartiality. The International Union for Psychological Science in its Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists emphasized the fundamental Principle of Integrity specifying “maximizing impartiality and minimizing biases.” Finally, the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct emphasizes in its Principle C: Integrity the avoidance of deception and misrepresentation, which could extend to refraining from the use of therapy as a vehicle for partisan persuasion.
Therapy is meant as a sanctuary for clients’ own narratives. Ironically, this trend can come to risk repeating the colonization abuses of the past under the imposition of a ‘decolonization’ pretense. We need a reintegration of client autonomy and therapeutic neutrality; therapy is the client’s domain for autonomy premised on non-maleficence, not an ideological battleground. It may be helpful to further embed thorough mandatory neutrality training in licensure standards, so it doesn’t become an issue at scale.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/05
*This interview is a contribution to an upcoming text on global indigeneity and international humanism from In-Sight Publishing.*
Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a Māori creative and author of Māori Boy Atheist, explores his journey from religious upbringing to secular humanism. Hiko-Tahuri discusses cultural tensions as a Māori atheist, advocating for respectful integration of Māori values like manaakitanga and whanaungatanga within secular contexts. He emphasizes participation in traditions like tangihanga (funeral rites) and haka without supernatural beliefs. The conversation explores misconceptions around Māori identity, the marginalization of secular voices, and the absence of atheists in leadership roles. Despite limited public representation, Māori secular humanists like Hiko-Tahuri remain active in community life. His book and outreach aim to normalize atheism within Māori communities. The interview underscores a broader call for inclusive frameworks in mental health, education, and policy that respect cultural identity and secular worldviews.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re joined by Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a multifaceted Māori creative and intellectual voice based in New Zealand.
Eru Hiko-Tahuri: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: He’s best known as the author of Māori Boy Atheist, where he chronicles his journey from childhood religious observance to secular humanism. Alongside writing, he engages audiences as a radio host, musician, and airbrush artist, integrating cultural expression with personal storytelling. Since launching Māori Boy Atheist, with editions available in English, Te Reo Māori, and French, he has contributed meaningfully to rationalist and skeptic communities, offering insights on navigating Māori spirituality as an atheist.
The book was first published in 2015 and has served as a platform to explore the intersection of Māori identity and secularism. His public talks and podcasts, notably The Heretical Hori, encourage free thought and integrity within the indigenous context. They combine art, reflective media, and cultural dialogue to foster conversations on belief, identity, and resilience. Through those platforms, I aim to respectfully explore and challenge ideas, especially within Māori communities where belief systems can be deeply personal and culturally intertwined.
Thank you very much for joining me today—I appreciate it.
Hiko-Tahuri: It’s a pleasure to be here.
Jacobsen: How do core humanist principles align with traditional Māori concepts such as mana, mana motuhake, and whanaungatanga?
Hiko-Tahuri:Whanaungatanga speaks to kinship and the interconnectedness of people. That aligns closely with humanism, emphasizing dignity, respect, and empathy. You treat others as people first—essentially as extended family. It’s about looking after the people within your sphere, which reflects humanist ethics well.
Jacobsen: How can secular humanist organizations incorporate Te Ao Māori—the Māori worldview—into their activities without endorsing supernaturalism while respecting and integrating those cultural values?
Hiko-Tahuri: That’s a great question. It’s not always straightforward, but let me give an example from personal experience. When someone in our family passes away, we take them to the marae—a tribal meeting ground—where they lie in state for three days. During that time, relatives come to mourn, share memories, cry, laugh, tell jokes, and say goodbyes.
Depending on travel or family arrangements, the person is buried or cremated on the third day—sometimes longer. This process reflects core Māori values like manaakitanga (hospitality, care) and whanaungatanga, which coexist naturally with humanist principles of community, respect, and shared humanity. These values shape how we live and commemorate life without invoking supernatural beliefs.
Employers in Aotearoa generally understand that if someone goes to a funeral, they might be gone for three days—that’s just the time it takes. All of that work, by the way, is done voluntarily. We gather at the marae. Some families will care for the food, and others will help with arrangements. You can even sleep there.
We sleep beside the body for those three days. We keep them with us. We talk to them. We joke about them. We tell stories. We insult them lovingly. We laugh. We cry. It’s all done out in the open, and it’s for everyone to witness. That’s just the way we do it. It’s a good, profound way of grieving together as a collective.
Jacobsen: And within a secular humanist context, this isn’t just about superficial inclusion—it’s about acknowledging different ways of being. That kind of grieving is profoundly human and deeply cultural. It’s not about hierarchy—this isn’t about one way being better than another.
Take my Dutch heritage, for example. They’re big on windmills, dikes, black licorice, and clogs. The traditional way of burial there is usually more private—placing the body in a mound of Earth and marking it with a cross or a headstone. The grieving tends to happen separately from the deceased.
But for you, it’s different. Being with the body, telling stories, laughing and crying beside them—all part of the process. I wouldn’t say one way is more valid than the other. These are just different cultural processes for the same human experience. One does not invalidate the other.
Hiko-Tahuri: This is just the way we do it. I don’t judge how others handle it, but this is the way I prefer because it’s how I grew up. It’s what feels real to me.
And yes, there are usually religious aspects involved in the funeral proceedings. When those moments arise, I sit quietly and let them happen around me. I do not participate in those parts because I cannot in good conscience. And that’s one of the problematic areas—Indigenous and non-religious. Those are the tensions.
Jacobsen: How do you navigate those tensions?
Hiko-Tahuri: That’s the most challenging part, honestly. Knowing when to stay quiet, step back, and speak. It isn’t easy.
Jacobsen: Were there aspects where you didn’t feel tension at all? Or places where the friction started to show?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. One of the earliest points where tension emerges is during the pōwhiri—the welcoming ceremony when people arrive at the marae. That includes a series of formal speeches. It’s in that speech-making process where religious content often appears. That’s where the rub tends to start.
Jacobsen: Do you find conversations with others in the Māori community become more difficult when you do not endorse the spiritual or supernatural aspects of the culture?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. It can be challenging. Not always, but often. Some people are very accepting. Others feel that rejecting the supernatural is rejecting the culture itself, which is not my intention. But the tension is real.
Jacobsen: So you’re engaging in the same practices but not endorsing the supernaturalism around them. Is that difficult for people?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. Many people do not understand that distinction. There have been many times when I’ve been told, “You’re not Māori if you don’t believe in these things.” That has happened quite a few times.
Jacobsen: That is unfortunately common. I have encountered similar stories in speaking with Indigenous people—particularly from North America. The closest equivalent, in terms of how it’s discussed internationally, is often with African Americans in more conservative or evangelistic religious circles: Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist—hardline Christianity in Black communities in the United States.
Suppose you’re a woman in those communities, and you reject the concept of God or Christianity entirely. In that case, you’ve forfeited your “Black card.” You’re suddenly seen as no longer fully part of the community.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes.
Jacobsen: And that is not just an identity issue—it’s social. You’re giving up a significant source of communal support in a society that will not necessarily provide support to you proportionately. So, there are deeper sociological and economic implications at play.
I’ve heard similar things from North American Indigenous people, too—they say, ‘You’ve given up your Indigenous card.
Hiko-Tahuri: Somehow, you’re less Māori or less authentic if you’re secular. On the marae or in the community, that feeling can be present.
Jacobsen: Would you say it is quite that extreme in New Zealand?
Hiko-Tahuri: Probably not to the same extent. New Zealanders are generally pretty liberal. Highly religious people here are sometimes even seen as a bit unusual. We’re more secular than many places—certainly more than I’ve seen in North America. So, it is not as intense, but it can still be challenging.
This is especially true among people in what we might call the Māori Renaissance—those who are just now reconnecting with their heritage. Typically, the first people they learn from are religious, so religion is deeply woven into the cultural learning they receive. Then they meet someone like me, who speaks the language and participates fully in the culture but is openly non-religious—and that creates tension for them. It challenges their framework.
Jacobsen: If you look at the traditional Māori worldview—how human beings were made, how the world came into being—what aspects can be reconciled with a humanistic way of looking at things, and what aspects cannot? And maybe you could give us a bit of a background primer. What’s the general picture?
Hiko-Tahuri: In the Māori creation narrative, everything begins with Te Kore—the void or nothingness. From Te Korecame Ranginui (Sky Father) and Papatūānuku (Earth Mother). They were bound together in a tight embrace, and between them lived their many children—some say seventy, others say fewer.
Because the children were trapped in the darkness between their parents, they decided that their parents had to be separated to live with light and space. This led to a conflict among the children—each had a different view on handling the situation. Eventually, Tāne Mahuta, the God of forests and birds, pushed his parents apart, creating the world of light, Te Ao Mārama.
These children—atua, the closest term to “gods”—became personifications of natural elements. So there’s Tangaroa for the sea, Tāwhirimātea for weather and storms, Rongo for cultivated food, and so on. There’s debate around what atruly means—whether they’re deities or ancestral forces—but they represent aspects of the natural world in human-like form.
These stories explain natural forces through personification. Of course, much of it doesn’t align with what we know from science about how humans or the Earth came into being. But some aspects resonate. For instance, each atua has a personality—just like humans do. This humanizes nature and gives people a relational framework for understanding their environment.
So yes, while the cosmology isn’t scientifically accurate, the relational values and metaphors can still be meaningful. That’s where the humanist alignment might be found—not in literal belief but in symbolic or cultural interpretation.
It reminds me of reading Joseph Campbell—how mythologies worldwide echo similar patterns. Eventually, you realize that they can’t all be true—and most likely, none of them are. That was my journey. Campbell was instrumental in helping me unpack much of what I had assumed. Once you see that every culture has a creation story—and they often contradict one another—you start questioning which, if any, are “true” in a literal sense.
Jacobsen: I’ve found it helpful to separate spirituality in the supernatural sense from spirituality as a personal or communal meaning-making practice, especially in conversations like this and other interviews. In other words, spirituality that gives a person purpose or peace doesn’t need to invoke the supernatural.
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely. That distinction has been vital for me, too.
Jacobsen: When people say “spiritual,” I sometimes ask: Do you mean supernaturalism or practices that foster wellbeing or connection? Prayer or meditation, for example, can have measurable health benefits—lowering stress and calming the nervous system—without requiring a belief in the supernatural.
So yes—looking at spiritual practices in the edification or enriching sense—not in the supernatural sense—what practices are done in the community or individually, or at least encouraged, that might be comparable to things like attending Easter or Christmas mass? Or personal rituals like being told to read a specific scripture in the morning, pray for ten minutes, hold a rosary, and recite ten Hail Marys?
Hiko-Tahuri: I was thinking about practices of personal unification. A lot of our communal activities involve singing. We’re a people who love to sing together. You will hear singing at any large gathering—a meeting, a ceremony, or a funeral.
Yes, some of the songs are religious, but what’s significant is that you have 300 people singing in harmony. And the richness of sound—those layers of harmonies—is incredible. Whether it’s traditional waiata, more contemporary songs, or even religious hymns, singing together is powerful. Even if the content has spiritual roots, the experience is about unity, connection, and shared emotion.
Jacobsen: That resonates with me. We’re both secular humanists and atheists. I can relate to my time in a university choir. I was in it for about two and a half years, and we sang many classical European music—Bach, Mozart’s Requiem, and other choral works.
Sometimes, we performed modern songs with a 1950s vibe. I remember people using phrases like “cat” and “daddio” or “you dig,” like something out of an Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor scene. I sang bass, and we once collaborated with musicians from the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra in a 500-seat church. The acoustics were stunning.
It was technically Christian or sacred music—cathedral music, I’d call it—but the overwhelming sense of awe, the physical resonance, the unity of voices… It was a spiritual experience in that broader, secular sense of the word.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, I’d call that spiritual too. It taps into a level of connection and emotion you do not find anywhere else.
I do not avoid using “spiritual” in that context. It describes an experience of profound meaning, joy, or connection. I am not using it to refer to supernatural beliefs.
I’m not one of those people who avoids the word altogether. I use it for deeply moving experiences that are transcendent in an emotional sense. Just because a word has a particular religious usage does not mean it is limited to that meaning.
Jacobsen: Yes—most words have secondary meanings. So, use the second meaning! And if someone asks, explain it.
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Statistically, I do not know of a single government census that includes hate crime data specifically against atheists, agnostics, or humanists. Have you ever seen one?
Hiko-Tahuri: Never heard of it.
Jacobsen: In Canada, the categories usually include antisemitism—perennially at the top—followed by anti-Muslim sentiment or “Islamophobia,” then discrimination against Roman Catholics. However, Catholics make up about 30% of the Canadian population, so naturally, they’ll be represented in the data due to sheer numbers.
Still, antisemitism usually tops the list. But recent research out of North America shows that people’s emotional responses to atheists are often rooted in disgust and distrust—those deep, visceral reactions.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, I’ve read about that.
Jacobsen: And when you break it down by political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, Independent—in the US, the negative perceptions of atheists remain low across all groups. The numbers are roughly as low as those for Muslims, even among Democrats and Independents. It’s slightly better in those groups than among Republicans, probably due to the strong influence of the evangelical white base.
But across the board, atheists still rank low in terms of public trust. So clearly, we’re missing something in national censuses or surveys. The social stigma is real, but it’s under-measured.
Hiko-Tahuri: I’d agree with that. In the New Zealand context, I wouldn’t say I’ve experienced hate for being an atheist. It’s more that I’m seen as an outlier—maybe eccentric or just “different”—rather than hated.
Sure, a few people have been upset or uncomfortable with it. But New Zealand is pretty liberal. Most people here don’t care what you believe—as long as you treat others well. That’s what matters most. We’re not as politically polarized, either.
Jacobsen: That’s refreshing. Demographically, what’s the approximate proportion of people with Māori heritage in New Zealand’s population?
Hiko-Tahuri: They say it’s approaching a million people out of a total population of about five million—roughly 20%.
Jacobsen: That’s significantly higher than in Canada. Indigenous people comprise around 4 or 5% of the population.
Within your community, have you encountered a dynamic similar to what Mariam Namazie describes among ex-Muslims in Britain? She talks about “minorities within minorities.” That is, Muslims are a minority in the UK, but ex-Muslims are a minority within that minority, often facing backlash both from within their communities and from wider society.
Hiko-Tahuri: I understand that idea. You leave a belief system, but you become doubly marginalized. It’s not that extreme here, but there are similarities.
Some Māori do view secular Māori as having stepped outside the bounds of what it means to be Māori, especially when religion has become entwined with their cultural reawakening. So yes, you can feel like a minority within a minority sometimes, but it is more subtle here—less hostile, I would say.
Jacobsen: That distinction makes sense. In the UK context, to support ex-Muslims publicly is sometimes misread as being anti-Muslim, which complicates everything. Identity politics can overshadow human rights issues.
Hiko-Tahuri: When cultural identity and religion are closely tied, questioning one can feel like attacking the other—even if that is not the intention.
Jacobsen: And you find yourself in this strange dichotomy—it is just a category error. You can support both Indigenous identity and secular values without negating either. It is just a mistake in framing. Do you experience that kind of tension in New Zealand as a Māori person? Or, more specifically, as a Māori atheist?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, definitely—as a Māori atheist, I do. I have had conversations with a few others who are both Māori and atheist, and we often feel like a minority within a minority. It is a unique position to be in. Interestingly, though, statistically, about 53% of Māori now report no religious affiliation.
Jacobsen: There you go.
Hiko-Tahuri: Most people would still describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Maybe only 10% would openly identify as atheists. So, it is still a tiny group to which I belong.
Jacobsen: Right.
Hiko-Tahuri: That leads back nicely to the idea of “coming out” as both Māori and atheist. I remember that journey. I had been reading all the usual books—The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and so on.
I struggled with the language in some of those books because they used words I had never encountered before. As the whole topic was so new, I had to sit with a dictionary beside me while reading.
Eventually, I reached a point where I realized, “I don’t believe in this anymore.” Then, the more complex question came: “What do I do about it?” And more importantly, “Can I even tell anyone?”
While I was at university, I met a few other Māori who had started to question Christianity, too. By understanding the colonization of Aotearoa, they began to see that Christianity was imposed here—brought in by missionaries from overseas. It was not ours originally. So some of us thought, “Why should we continue believing something that was forced upon us?”
That was my thinking for a while. But then I had another realization: I had rejected Christianity using a rational lens, but I had never applied that same critical lens to traditional Māori beliefs—the atua, the creation stories, the pantheon of gods.
So I did. When I examined those beliefs through the same standards, I had to admit—they did not add up either.
That is when I had the next big moment: “I don’t believe this either. So… now what? And how am I going to tell people?”
For a long time, I did not. At first, I equated being an atheist with simply not being Christian—since Christianity is still the dominant religious framework in New Zealand.
But it took years to fully embrace the term atheist in the broader sense—to reach the point where I could say, “I do not believe in any supernatural being that controls the world or defines our purpose.”
Eventually—probably after reading The God Delusion for the third time—I thought, “I can’t be the only one.”
Hiko-Tahuri: I remember thinking, “I can’t be the only Māori going through this.” So I started searching for books or articles written by Māori people about being both Māori and atheist. And I found absolutely nothing. There was no one—no one who had written publicly about being Māori and atheist.
Jacobsen: In your experience, had you at least come across others in real life—even if they had not formally written anything?
Hiko-Tahuri: I had met people who had loudly and proudly rejected Christianity and returned to belief in the traditional Māori gods—the atua. But I do not think I had ever met another openly Māori atheist—except for one woman I found on YouTube.
Her name was Nairi McCarthy. She was involved with the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists.
Jacobsen: Oh yes, yes—I know of her.
Hiko-Tahuri: You could have spoken with her a few years ago. Sadly, she passed away five or six years ago now.
She was the only one I had ever seen publicly acknowledge being Māori and atheist. And I thought, “Damn it. If I’m the only one with some writing skills and talk for a living, maybe I need to write this book.”
Jacobsen: Right.
Hiko-Tahuri: That is what led me to write it. I thought, “I know for certain I cannot be the only person who has come to this conclusion.”
So I turned to my community for support—and found nothing—no books, no articles. I thought, “Well, maybe I have to be the first. I’ll quietly write my story, upload it to the Internet, and maybe someone will find it.”
And that is precisely what I did.
Jacobsen: Was it terrifying?
Hiko-Tahuri: Oh yes—completely. I still remember the day I hit Publish. I put it on Smashwords. And I had no one to turn to—no reference point for what kind of response it might get.
But what I wanted was to leave a record. I’ve been to Māori funerals where they lied about the beliefs of the deceased—saying they were believers, that they loved God, when I knew for a fact they didn’t.
I didn’t want anyone to lie about me to my kids after I was gone. I needed something that told the truth about who I was. So I wrote the book.
It wasn’t to convince anyone. It was just my story—something people could find and know was real.
Jacobsen: How long did it take to write?
Hiko-Tahuri: About a year and a half. It’s a short book, but it took me that long to work through it.
Jacobsen: And the word count?
Hiko-Tahuri: Around sixteen or seventeen thousand words.
Jacobsen: So, roughly a thousand words a month?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes—about that. I took my time with it.
Jacobsen: That must have been a difficult thing to do. We should get into that part because if someone stumbles across this ten years from now, it could be helpful to them.
What was the tension you felt when you realized, “Oh, shit—I don’t believe any of this anymore”?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah. I love my community. I love my people. I love our ceremonies. I love the familial nature of it all—the shared values, the collective spirit.
But I couldn’t believe that there were only seventy children of Rangi and Papa or that everything came from Te Kore—the void of nothingness. I couldn’t hold that belief anymore.
And that realization… it was jarring. “What do I do now?” It does suck. But I also knew I could not stay silent. I could not pretend I wasn’t having these thoughts or deny the conclusions I was reaching.
Jacobsen: That must have been a real internal conflict.
Hiko-Tahuri: It was—a deeply personal one. Part of me thought, “If you just keep quiet, you’ll be fine. You don’t have to believe—you can go your own way and avoid the conflict.”
That was tempting. It would have been easier. But I also knew that if someone asked me directly, I wouldn’t lie. I’d say, “No, I don’t believe in that.”
So, part of the thinking behind the book was: If I write this down, I won’t have to explain myself repeatedly. I can point people to it.
That felt honest. It meant I wasn’t lying or hiding anymore, either.
Jacobsen: After you published it, was the reaction proportional to the emotional weight you carried? Or was it mostly internal?
Hiko-Tahuri: Oh, it was all internal. The fear, the anxiety—it was mostly in my head.
Jacobsen: How common do you think that experience is? Do you think there’s a quiet wave of Māori atheists—or what I sometimes call “atheism-lite,” meaning agnostics—people who live by humanist principles but are afraid to come out and say they don’t believe in a deity?
People who think they’ll face judgment when, in fact, most people are too busy trying not to check Elon Musk or Donald Trump’s Twitter feed?
Hiko-Tahuri: [Laughs] Yes, right?
There’s a number of us out there. I wouldn’t call it a wave just yet, but there are certainly people wondering, “How do I tell my parents I don’t believe in God anymore?” That kind of question is very real. It’s hard to quantify, of course. But the reaction to the book was primarily positive. People were curious.
One of my cousins—his whole branch of the family is very religious—he reached out to me after reading it and said, “What? I’ve been thinking like that my whole life. I didn’t know that’s what it was called—being an atheist.”
Jacobsen: That is such a simple statement. But it carries so much emotional baggage for no good reason.
It’s fascinating. I’ve heard everything—from people being jailed or harassed for their beliefs to professional consequences to, on the other end of the spectrum, people gaining fame or recognition for speaking out—like the Daniel Dennetts and Sam Harrises of the world.
Hiko-Tahuri: So, I don’t avoid things. I go to gatherings because it’s about family first—and that’s always been my attitude. Family is family.
You put family above what individuals believe. That’s how my religious family treats me, too—my cousins and uncles. A good example: Seven of my closest cousins were wearing religious robes at a recent funeral, but we still talked and connected. The spiritual stuff was put aside because we’re family first.
I’m lucky that way. But it’s also a wider New Zealand attitude—family comes before anything else.
Jacobsen: In the North American Indigenous context, something that often happens is this: to reject the common beliefs—whether those are traditional spiritual systems or Christian indoctrination brought through colonization—is usually seen as rejecting Indigenous identity itself.
Because of colonization, many Indigenous people in Canada and the US identify as Christian. So, if you’re an Indigenous atheist, it’s often seen as adopting a “white” belief—or, I guess, more precisely, a white rejection of religion. Atheism is framed as a white thing.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, I’ve come across that sentiment here, too. I’ve had family members say similar things when I tell them I’m going to speak at an atheist group or do an interview like this. They’ll say something like, “Oh yes, that’s you, and your funny white friend,” or “That’s your weird white thing.”
Jacobsen: [Laughs] So there’s a little dig, but it’s not hostile?
Hiko-Tahuri: It’s more of a friendly poke than a grave insult. There’s no real malice behind it. It’s like a teasing jab, not a deep cut.
Jacobsen: And at least they’re not using racial slurs like you’d sometimes hear in North America—words like “cracker”thrown around with some edge to them.
Hiko-Tahuri: Right, it’s gentler here—more of a soft ribbing than anything else.
Jacobsen: I’ve heard similar things from North American Indigenous people. Atheism is often perceived as white, so any Indigenous person who identifies that way is viewed as having abandoned their roots—when really, they’re just thinking independently.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. That’s the dynamic. But honestly, I don’t care what other people think. I do me. I don’t have the energy to worry about other people’s opinions of me. If something comes up—and it rarely does—I’ll deal with it then. But in the meantime, I live my life.
Hiko-Tahuri: I won’t worry about what the rest of the Māori community thinks about me. I was even on Māori Television, here in Aotearoa, talking openly about being an atheist.
One of the more common comments I received afterwards was, “Oh, he needs to learn more about his culture.”
Jacobsen: This is a sophisticated way of saying, “He’s ignorant of our ways—therefore, he doesn’t accept our ways.” It’s a coded dismissal.
Hiko-Tahuri: Ironically, I practice more of our customs, speak more Te Reo, and participate more fully in the culture than many people making those comments.
Jacobsen: So, would you say that reaction is patronizing within the Māori community?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. That’s precisely what it is.
Another interesting thing is how certain people are automatically respected in the Māori community based on appearance. For example, if you’re an older Māori man wearing a clerical collar—any religious collar, regardless of denomination—you’re automatically afforded the status of someone to be respected.
Jacobsen: For clarity, could that collar belong to a Christian denomination or another tradition?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, it doesn’t matter what religion it is. If you wear the collar, you get that reverence. And I’ve met some of those men—they’re not particularly insightful or wise. I wouldn’t trust them to lead anything other than a church service. But because they hold that religious role, they’re treated with deference. So they’re seen as kaumātua—elders—because of the position, not because of actual wisdom or age.
You can be a 30-year-old wearing a collar and be treated like an elder. That’s one of my frustrations with how religion plays out in some Māori spaces.
Jacobsen: Would you distinguish here—again, using international terminology but applying it to a Māori-specific context—between indigeneity as culture and indigeneity as religion?
Because what I’ve come across in other interviews is a concept some call “Indigenous humanism.” It’s a framework where people continue participating in Indigenous practices—storytelling, ritual, community events—but without the supernatural belief component.
But on the flip side, I’ve also seen some Indigenous frameworks begin to mirror structured religions: hierarchy, sacred texts, holy oral traditions, and supernatural entities—almost resembling traditional Abrahamic models with “gods,” sacred teachings, powers, principalities, and so on.
Some Indigenous atheists and humanists I’ve spoken with are worried about this trend—a kind of religious revival forming around indigeneity itself. Their concern is that it could become dogmatic and undermine secular and Enlightenment-based thinking.
Hiko-Tahuri: I get what you’re saying. I haven’t seen that happening here, at least not in a widespread or formalized way. But part of that could be numbers. You’d need a critical mass of people adopting that framework for it to take shape.
It’s less about isolated belief and more about institutionalization. It doesn’t evolve into that kind of system if you don’t have the numbers, but I understand the concern. Once belief systems become formalized, there’s always the risk that they become exclusionary or dogmatic.
We do not have that many of us, so we have not even had the chance to break ourselves into different “types” of atheists. We have not even come together for a group chat to discuss our thoughts. So no, I have not seen anything like that fragmentation yet because we are such a tiny group in New Zealand.
There has not been enough critical mass within atheism to split into more specific beliefs or approaches.
Jacobsen: If your initial feeling after publishing the book was one of relief—and the reaction was much more subdued than anticipated—do you now see people entering the atheist or humanist space, especially Māori, with this almost irrational sense of fear, only to realize, “Oh… it’s fine. It’s not a big deal”?
Hiko-Tahuri: Honestly? No, we do not even really see that reaction. Because so few people talk about it publicly. When we gather, we have roles to fill. We are there to work—we have responsibilities. There is no time to sit and have long philosophical debates about belief.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a cultural distinction. Take something like the Catholic Church—they gather, sit, listen, and sing. It is contemplative. But you are describing something very different.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. For example, there is much to do if we’re at the marae. We have protocols, hospitality, food to prepare, cleaning, hosting—so much practical work. We do not pause to reflect or debate belief systems during those moments.
At most, you might hear someone say, “Oh yeah, that cousin over there’s a bit different—he doesn’t believe in God.” And that’s it. That’s probably as deep as it goes.
Jacobsen: So the culture itself, in those moments, emphasizes function and participation over theology.
Hiko-Tahuri: We are caught up in the activity of the occasion, not in philosophical contemplation about the universe’s origins.
Jacobsen: So—what was the general reaction to the book? Good, bad, ugly, neutral, controlling?
Hiko-Tahuri: [Laughs] Honestly? Most people I knew contacted me to say, “Why am I not in it?”
Most reactions were driven by self-interest—”little me” stuff. Many people who read the book were curious if they were in it. A lot of the feedback was, “Oh yeah, that’s just you being you.” I’ve always been considered a bit weird anyway.
Jacobsen: [Laughs] Familiar.
Hiko-Tahuri: Other than that, people would say things like, “I never thought about that,” or “I didn’t know you couldn’t believe in God.” Because belief is so deeply embedded in Māori identity from such a young age.
Jacobsen: Is it similar to beliefs around wairua—the spiritual essence or spirit?
Hiko-Tahuri: Very much so. Wairua—the spiritual dimension—permeates everything. It’s so ingrained that when someone steps outside of it or says, “I don’t believe in that,” it’s beyond what many people are prepared to consider. They ignore it. It’s too far outside the norm to process.
Jacobsen: Did the book catalyze others—within the community or the broader New Zealand public—to come forward or speak out?
Hiko-Tahuri: I don’t know. I don’t want to claim that other Māori atheists came out because of my book. I can’t say that for sure. But we have a Facebook group called Atua Kore, which means “godless.” It has about 500 members now.
Jacobsen: That’s a solid number.
Hiko-Tahuri: It is. And yes, we’ve had a few people post in that group announcing that they’re atheists—that they’d made the decision, and it was huge for them. That happened after the book came out, but I won’t say it was because of it. I don’t know.
Jacobsen: Are there any prominent atheist or humanist figures in New Zealand generally—Māori or otherwise?
Hiko-Tahuri: No real high-profile names come to mind. One of the cultural dynamics in New Zealand is what we call “tall poppy syndrome”—we tend to cut down the people who stick out. So, self-promotion is frowned upon here. You don’t boast; you don’t elevate yourself. You keep your head down.
Jacobsen: Honestly, North America could use a little more of that.
Hiko-Tahuri: [Laughs] Maybe! But because of that, unless you’re already in the community, you’ve probably never heard of any of our local atheists or humanists.
Jacobsen: Are there any other books, aside from yours, by Māori atheists?
Hiko-Tahuri: Not yet.
Jacobsen: That’s wild. Okay, let me put this on the record: open offer. If we can gather around 100,000 words’ worth of conversations with Māori atheists, agnostics, or humanists—fully inclusive—I’ll help compile it. You can tell me your life story, “coming out,” and reflections. No pressure.
Hiko-Tahuri: That sounds good.
Jacobsen: It’s an ironic “coming-to-Jesus” phrase. [Laughs] But really, the point would be to normalize it. To show that being a Māori atheist isn’t a big deal—it’s just one way of being. That #NormalizeAtheism message. You’ve got 500 members in the Whakapono Kore group. Surely, some would be up for it.
Hiko-Tahuri: Maybe. But I don’t know how many would want to go public. That’s always the challenge. Out of those 500 members in the Atua Kore group, I know about four people willing to speak publicly.
Jacobsen: So basically, the secretary, vice president, president, and treasurer?
Hiko-Tahuri: [Laughs] Pretty much—except we’re not that organized. It’s not even my group; someone else started it. I’m just a member like everyone else.
Jacobsen: What is the Taranaki Maunga?
Hiko-Tahuri: Oh yes, I am granting personhood to the mountain. That’s an environmental protection mechanism more than a spiritual or belief-based one. It’s a legal framework designed to safeguard the mountain.
Jacobsen: The international community has increasingly formalized support for Indigenous peoples through declarations, conventions, and covenants. Some of the most notable include:
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007.
International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989).
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) includes Indigenous peoples under legal definitions of racial protection.
These instruments serve as essential frameworks for recognizing Indigenous communities’ cultural, environmental, political, and spiritual rights.
Additional international instruments support Indigenous rights, which are not often discussed but are incredibly important.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) — Article 1 affirms the right to self-determination for all peoples, including Indigenous communities.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (also 1966) contains articles addressing equality, cultural rights, and the right to participate in social and economic development, which directly apply to Indigenous peoples.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) — Article 30 affirms the right of Indigenous children to enjoy their culture, religion, and language.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — General Recommendation 39 specifically addresses Indigenous women and girls.
The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities (1992) — Affirms collective minority rights, including Indigenous identities.
And there are several region-specific instruments:
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter, 1981) — Article 22 recognizes the right to development, including for Indigenous peoples.
The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP, 2016) — Establishes principles for self-identification, cultural preservation, and public participation.
UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) — Recognizes and protects the cultural expressions of Indigenous communities.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Article 8(j), mandates respecting and preserving Indigenous knowledge, innovations, and practices related to conservation and sustainable biodiversity.
So, this is not “nothing.” There’s a body of international law supporting Indigenous rights. Of course, the tension always lies between what is declared and what is implemented. That’s where the evidence and accountability need to come in.
From your perspective—within the Māori context—do you see any of these declarations, covenants, or charters shaping Māori–New Zealand relations?
Hiko-Tahuri: To be completely honest, I’ve only ever heard of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). That’s the only one that ever comes up in public conversation or news here. All the others? I haven’t heard of them.
Jacobsen: That’s insightful. If we take secular humanism as a life stance grounded in an empirical moral philosophy that adapts its ethics based on new evidence, do you think Māori secular humanists could lead in implementing or advocating for some of these international declarations?
Hiko-Tahuri: I would like to say yes—but I worry. Like I said before, in our Māori communities, the people who wear collars—the religious leaders—get the leadership roles. People like me, who don’t wear a collar, are less likely to be listened to.
So, Indigenous secular humanists—are not currently in a position of influence when it comes to policy or leadership. And that’s something I think about a lot.
Jacobsen: That’s a critical and complex conversation. It reminds me of my last in-depth interview with David Cook, Maheengun, who has an Anishinaabe background in Canada. He identified as a traditional knowledge keeper—but importantly, was a knowledge keeper. There’s nuance in how Indigenous knowledge and leadership structures function and interact with humanist and secular frameworks. In the North American Indigenous context, the term for that is that you do not have a collar, but you might be a pipe carrier.
Maheengun gave up his status as a pipe carrier because, for him, there was too much dissonance between his humanist, atheist worldview and the expectations that came with that ceremonial role.
That gets into something I do not think anyone’s explored yet: if someone adopts atheism and secular humanism seriously and then steps away from a role like a pipe carrier or traditional knowledge keeper, how does that affect their voice—not just within the community but in broader systems like government-to-government or what is often termed “nation-to-nation” relations in Canada?
Because if someone lacks ceremonial or spiritual status, they often have no formal recognition—and no seat at the table. So, the representatives federal governments see in these discussions tend to be those with supernatural frameworks. That becomes the perceived Indigenous worldview, even though, as we know, many Indigenous people do not subscribe to that at all.
And the same is true for Māori. Significant portions of the population—like in the 634 recognized First Nations bands in Canada—either reject or question those beliefs. Even if, as in your case, they still participate culturally. Yet they are still not always seen as “real Māori” by some.
Where could that conversation go? What questions should we be asking?
Hiko-Tahuri: I’ve been thinking about this one for a long time—and honestly, I still don’t know.
In New Zealand, the government recognizes several iwi—tribal groups—as official representatives. So, if the government wants to consult with Māori, it will go to those groups and their hierarchies. The structure is established and formalized.
But here’s the thing: because those bodies represent the majority, people like me—those without a spiritual or ceremonial role—do not get much say.
That said, I’ve been fortunate. I have working relationships with some of the local tribal leaders. I’ve worked within their organizations, so I know at least they’re getting one different voice in the room—mine. I can say, “Hey, this is something you must consider.”
But that’s not a system-wide thing. It’s very personal. And yes, it isn’t easy to imagine how to scale that and how to make it more inclusive.
These representatives often claim to speak for all of us. But do they? We don’t know.
Jacobsen: That’s a tension in democratic governance, too. No political party or leader truly represents everyone. They represent the most significant percentage of voters in a particular cycle. So even there, you get a majority-of-plurality scenario, not true consensus.
It’s the same dynamic. When a Māori elder with a collar and status comes forward and tells the New Zealand government, “This is what we want as a community,” it’s assumed that their voice is the voice of all Māori.
But that’s not the case.
Hiko-Tahuri: There’s a presumption that doesn’t map cleanly onto European governance models. But most of our iwi—tribal groups—that the government interacts with are democratically elected. It’s not always a traditional hereditary hierarchy. Leaders are often voted in.
Jacobsen: Interesting. So there’s a mix of democratic process and cultural leadership?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, and I wouldn’t say all of those leaders are particularly religious either. Many use religious language or rituals to connect with the people they serve. It’s less about being deeply spiritual and more about resonating with the majority—many of whom are.
Jacobsen: That ties into self-stereotyping and external stereotyping. It becomes a kind of feel-good activism—what I sometimes call “parade activism” instead of “hard-work activism.”
For example, I attended a session at the 69th Commission on the Status of Women—Canada’s Indigenous. There was an Indigenous panel, and a few participants represented Indigenous communities beyond Canada’s borders.
Some arrived in full traditional dress—massive ceremonial headgear and all. Now, that visual shorthand becomes what government officials expect to see. It creates a kind of caricature—but it also becomes self-reinforcing.
That person becomes the “abstract ideal” of what a proper Indigenous representative should look like, and the government becomes the “abstract system” responding to that image. Both sides feel good about the exchange, but it risks becoming performative. It’s not always representative of the range of Indigenous experiences—especially secular ones.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes,.
Jacobsen: So it becomes this cycle: “We brought the right Māori to the table,” and “I represented the right version of Māori identity.” Everyone walks away satisfied—but it also acts as a brake. You’re pushing the gas and the brake at the same time.
Hiko-Tahuri: Right—and then when someone like me comes forward, without the collar or ceremonial role, they’re seen as the outlier.
Jacobsen: Like the cranky guy on the porch yelling at the sky.
Hiko-Tahuri: The Garfield of the meeting, if you will. [Laughs]
Jacobsen: No one wants that person. They’re not the story anyone wants to hear.
Hiko-Tahuri: That reminds me of something recent. The New Zealand Psychological Society referenced my book.
Until now, the society’s approach was based on a framework developed by a respected Māori elder—someone known in cultural and philosophical spaces. He proposed a four-sided model of well-beingwellbeing, likened to a house. It’s used widely in Māori mental health services.
The four sides are physical, family, spiritual, and—something else. But the point is: if you’re working with Māori clients, the model says you must consider all four, including the spiritual.
So, twenty years ago, I went to see a therapist. They used this exact model. We sat down, and they said, “We need to begin with a karakia—a prayer.”
I said, “I’m not religious. I don’t want to pray.”
But their training told them they had to do it. So, I was forced to sit through a religious ritual I didn’t believe in to access mental health care. And worse, I was pressured to participate in that prayer myself. That’s a significant example. It shows how models meant to be inclusive can become exclusionary—especially for Māori who are secular.
Jacobsen: That’s like people being forced to go to AA.
Hiko-Tahuri: I presented to a group of psychologists about a year ago. One of the prominent members—someone involved in the humanist movement here—submitted a formal statement to the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists.
He said, “Look, this is a perspective you haven’t considered.” That spiritual requirement—where practitioners were required to begin with a prayer—was challenged. As a result, recommendations have now been made to adjust those protocols to include people who do not believe. That’s one positive change I can point to that came out of it.
Jacobsen: Is the traditional Māori dance called the haka?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, the haka.
Jacobsen: That seems like one of the more benign aspects of cultural tradition, even for someone transitioning ideologically. I don’t see how a dance would be impacted by whether someone is spiritual.
Hiko-Tahuri: No—not at all. The haka isn’t inherently religious. It’s a form of emotional and communal expression. While its origins include warrior preparation, it’s evolved far beyond that.
There are haka for celebrations, mourning, farewells, and graduations. At university ceremonies, if someone Māori walks across the stage, people from their whānau will often leap up from the crowd and perform a haka in celebration. It’s done everywhere, for all kinds of moments. It’s how we express collective feelings—joy, grief, pride, and love.
Jacobsen: So, when you begin mapping the geography of Māori secularism—as a relatively new concept—are there any aspects of traditional Māori governance that could be considered appropriately secular? That is, are there spaces where ritual or spiritual practices are distinctly set apart or is everything more or less integrated?
Hiko-Tahuri: So, in most traditional Māori contexts, everything tends to be intertwined—spiritual, social, political, and cultural dimensions are not separated in the Western sense. In that way, Māori culture is similar to many traditional religious cultures, where secularism, as we understand it in liberal democracies, was never really a category.
Jacobsen: Now, tapu—the concept of sacredness or restriction in Māori culture—retains significant cultural power. But from a secular Māori perspective, like yours, tapu can be understood metaphorically rather than metaphysically. It functions symbolically to mark respect, boundaries, or social norms rather than indicating belief in the supernatural. What does that mean in practical terms?
Hiko-Tahuri: Take karakia, for example—these are often translated as prayers or incantations. I don’t perform them myself. But in spaces where karakia are expected—such as ceremonial openings or public gatherings—I’ve written secular alternatives, essentially nonreligious invocations. I cannot authentically engage in the religious or supernatural aspects, but I can offer something meaningful and culturally respectful that fits the moment. That’s how I bridge the gap: by replacing the supernatural element with a secular expression that still honours the cultural context.
Jacobsen: This reminds me of the situation in Canada. Canada is a federal state divided into municipalities, provinces, and territories, and then the national government, which is functionally similar to the U.S. structure of counties, states, and federal governance. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City) that opening municipal council meetings with prayer violated the state’s duty of religious neutrality. It effectively made official prayers at government meetings unconstitutional.
Following that decision, organizations like the British Columbia Humanist Association began investigating compliance across municipalities. Despite the ruling, they found that many local governments continued to include prayer in official meetings. In response, the Association sent letters to these municipalities pointing out the legal ruling, sharing data, and urging them to comply with the law by removing religious observances from public sessions. This kind of advocacy led to meaningful change in some regions.
So, when I consider your experience, I think of it in that light. You’re not opposing cultural participation or public service; instead, you’re drawing a line where religious practices—like prayer—are included in civic spaces where they may no longer be appropriate, especially in pluralistic or post-colonial contexts. Countries like Aotearoa, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa all fall under the category of “post-colonial” states grappling with how to reconcile Indigenous traditions, secular governance, and religious pluralism.
So, let us return to the historical backdrop. Christian missionary efforts primarily drove colonization in Aotearoa, New Zealand. I understand that many of those involved were of European heritage—like my own. When people refer to “post-colonial” in this context, they often mean a phase following that religious and political imposition—perhaps even envisioning a society in a reconciled, pluralistic state where Indigenous and settler cultures have negotiated a new equilibrium. Would you say that is accurate?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, that is broadly correct. Among post-colonial nations, I would say Aotearoa, New Zealand, has gone further than many in terms of acknowledging and integrating Māori language, culture, and perspectives into public life. You can see the effects of that on things like the census data. As of the most recent census, about 53% of New Zealanders identified as having no religion. That makes New Zealand a post-Christian country, at least in terms of demographic majority. Christianity is now a minority belief, which shifts the dynamics.
Jacobsen: And how does that shift affect your everyday life, particularly as someone who identifies as an atheist and a humanist? Does it allow you to live more comfortably and authentically?
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, overt religiosity is a bit unusual here. People who are very religious are more of a minority now—and may be looked at as slightly outside the norm. The country itself is pretty secular. Yes, we still have prayers at the beginning of some public meetings, but those are more about tradition than belief in most cases. There are calls to remove such practices, and I support that. However, overall, New Zealand has a very relaxed and liberal society. People do not care what others believe or do not believe. There is a strong cultural inclination toward individual freedom and tolerance, so we rarely see heated debates or conflicts over religion here.
Jacobsen: Tell me more about your podcast, Heretical. Is it still running, and where can people find it?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, it is back. I originally launched it some time ago but had to pause due to other commitments. I have now restarted it. The first season includes 10 episodes, where I read my book chapter by chapter. The book is free—I never wrote it to make money; I wrote it to tell a story. That story forms the basis of the podcast. I have also added another episode where I talk about a strange encounter I had with what I would describe as a cult-like group who tried to recruit me. That experience was eye-opening and worth sharing. There will be more episodes in the future. I plan to delve into some of the more common arguments for theism—things like the cosmological argument—and explore why I do not find them convincing. These kinds of discussions are not often had within our community, so I think it is essential to create space for them.
Jacobsen: What about your music and your airbrush art? Do elements of secularism or humanism show up in those creative outlets?
Hiko-Tahuri: Not so much in my music, no. It is more of a personal expression, and I keep it separate from my secular identity. But everything I create reflects my worldview in some way, even if not explicitly.
I have been playing in the same band with friends for about 25 years now. We only get together to play once every five years or so these days, but we are just a bunch of old mates who enjoy making music together. I played my first gig when I was 14 years old for a country music club here in New Zealand. I got pulled into country music because there really were not many other musical options in the small town I grew up in.
Music has always been part of my life, but I have never chased fame or done it for recognition. I do it because I love it. The same goes for painting. I have created a few pieces where I’ve expressed thoughts on some of the more absurd or troubling beliefs in the Bible. For example, there is that passage—1 Timothy 2:12, I think—that says women should remain silent and not teach. I did a painting responding to that. I also painted a Celtic cross overlaid with Māori designs to symbolize how religion, especially Christianity, colonized us just as much as the English did. I have sold or given away some of those pieces, but really, art is something I do for personal fulfillment rather than profit.
Jacobsen: How do emerging networks like Māori atheist and freethinker communities offer space for collective doubt or help individuals express personal doubts within a shared context?
Hiko-Tahuri: That is a good question. I do not know if that is even the aim of the group I joined. It is not my group—I just found it and joined. For me, it was more about discovering that there were other people out there who think like me and also look like me. That alone was meaningful. We have not tried to turn it into a collective movement. Māori atheism is still in its infancy. Until I wrote my book, I had not encountered any serious discussion about it, at least not that I could find. That group did exist beforehand, but I stumbled upon it afterward.
So, right now, most of the Māori atheists I see are solo actors. We speak up when we feel like it, but there is no organized collective activism or shared identity. We are in such an early stage of development as a community that it has not yet coalesced into anything more structured or strategic.
Jacobsen: Since we last spoke, have you had any recent thoughts on the protocols and principles of Indigenous declarations?
Hiko-Tahuri: No, I have not looked into it lately. I know that the New Zealand government initially chose not to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, though it eventually endorsed it in 2010. But beyond that, I have not followed recent developments very closely.
Jacobsen: I have not had a chance to read into some of those areas, but I would like to. What about the precise etiquette and civic customs—honouring those customs that come from the subculture while not reciting the prayers? What is the balance being struck there?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah, I think that is one of the most challenging parts—figuring out what you can do respectfully while maintaining personal integrity. If we are talking, for instance, about pōwhiri—that is, the formal welcome ceremony—part of that involves speech-making. And during those speeches, spiritual language is often invoked. It is hard to categorize it strictly as religious, but it carries spiritual overtones.
Navigating is a challenge because there is a specific formula for constructing those speeches within our culture. They follow a traditional structure that includes spiritual references—things I do not believe in. So, I often have to rework those parts, recreating the tone and form without the religious or supernatural elements. It is difficult and takes much careful thought. That is probably the main struggle for Māori atheists who speak the language and actively participate in cultural life. We are trying to maintain the integrity of our heritage while adapting it to a secular worldview.
Jacobsen: Have you ever had an experience—either due to your ethnic background or lack of belief—where someone got confrontational with you? The proverbial finger-wagging, shouting match? I cannot imagine that happening much to a Kiwi.
Hiko-Tahuri: No, we are generally not that confrontational in New Zealand. And there are a couple of practical reasons, too. Because of how I look—my physical presence—people usually do not get up in my face. I am around six feet tall, and I guess I have a face that might be intimidating. So, people do not tend to push those boundaries. I am not aggressive or threatening at all, but sometimes, just my appearance is enough to make people think twice.
Jacobsen: That reminds me—there was a story out of the U.S. involving Eminem. I think gang members were extorting him—either the Crips or the Bloods. But apparently, there was a Samoan-American gang so feared that even the Crips were hesitant around them. Eminem hired them for protection, and they ended up defending him and collaborating on music. I believe they even put out an album together.
It was a pretty wild story. It shows how much physical presence and group identity can shape interactions—whether in music, culture, or personal safety. It is funny how those dynamics play out in so many different places.
Hiko-Tahuri: It can be imposing. I am five-eleven, but I am not baby-faced. Still, I have heard of incidents where Māori women in New Zealand—especially those who wear moko kauae, the traditional tattoo—get hassled often.
Jacobsen:How so?
Hiko-Tahuri: By members of the public, saying things like, “You shouldn’t be here,” or “You look intimidating,” or “You shouldn’t be in this park.” One of these incidents happened just last year in a local park. A woman was told she could not be there when someone’s kids were around, as if she was somehow threatening—just for wearing the moko kauae. These things do happen, particularly to women. I have noticed that it never happens to me. Maybe that has something to do with physical presence or perceived threat, but yes—it is a pattern. That does happen, and fairly often.
Jacobsen: I am out of the questions, too. So, am I missing anything? What do you think?
Hiko-Tahuri: I do not think so. I cannot think of anything else at the moment. That was a solid session.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for today.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, that sounds great. Thank you very much.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16
*This interview is a contribution to an upcoming text on global indigeneity and international humanism from In-Sight Publishing.*
David “Maheengun” Cook, an atheist and humanist from the Mississaugas of the Anishinaabe people, shares his life journey navigating Indigenous identity, secularism, and cultural heritage. Raised near Rice Lake, Ontario, he learned traditional teachings—like oral history, plant knowledge, and seasonal rhythms—from elders. Yet, he embraced atheism at 13, finding Christian doctrines unconvincing and later stepping away from formal Indigenous spirituality, such as pipe-carrying and Midewiwin ceremonies. Cook distinguishes between Indigeneity as a cultural-historical identity and Indigenous humanism, which he sees as increasingly conflated with spiritual beliefs incompatible with secular humanism’s reliance on reason and evidence. He critiques the romanticization of Indigenous knowledge systems, warning against overvaluing localized spiritual traditions as universal truth. Still, he values cultural respect, environmental ethics, and communal decision-making embedded in Anishinaabe life. While he sees overlap with secular humanism in compassion and ethical living, he insists on epistemological clarity: lived experience and reverence are not scientific knowledge. He emphasizes the importance of dialogue, mutual understanding, and intellectual honesty, challenging assumptions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. Cook’s reflections underscore the complex interplay between cultural continuity and philosophical integrity in modern Indigenous life.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by David Cook, also known by his Anishinaabe name, Maheengun, which means Timberwolfin the Anishinaabemowin language.
David will share his perspective on Indigenous identity, humanism, and atheism. He was raised near Rice Lake in southern Ontario, where Anishinaabe teachings influenced his formative years. He learned from elders about oral traditions, plant knowledge, and cultural practices rooted in the land and community. Despite this deep cultural foundation, Cook did not adopt theistic beliefs. He embraced atheism at the age of 13 after finding Christian teachings unconvincing.
His journey exemplifies the complex and often misunderstood relationship between Indigenous spirituality and humanist principles. Cook observed that traditional Anishinaabe worldviews emphasize spiritual relationships with the natural world, ancestors, and beings—but not in the form of hierarchical theism or deity worship. Over time, however, he has witnessed a shift in some Indigenous communities toward institutionalized or formalized spiritual practices, influenced in part by colonial impositions and revivalist movements. These shifts sometimes conflict with secular or humanist frameworks. In navigating this tension, Cook stepped away from ceremonial responsibilities, such as being a pipe carrier, to live more authentically within his philosophical values.
His experiences challenge the stereotype that Indigenous identity must be tied to religion or theism. They also highlight the diversity of beliefs and spiritual expressions among Indigenous peoples. Through these conversations, we will explore how Indigenous cultural heritage can intersect with secular humanist values, contributing to a broader discussion on Indigeneity and humanism. I approach this as a learner, open to where the dialogue leads. You never know unless you ask.
David, thank you very much for joining me today.
David “Maheengun” Cook: Thank you for inviting me.
Jacobsen: My first question is: Do you come from an Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Algonquin, Mississauga, or Nipissing background?
Cook: My experiences come from Mississaugas, originally.
Jacobsen: That helps. For those who may not know—like myself—how are the various Anishinaabe peoples distinguished from one another? Is it primarily geographic, or is there more to it?
Cook: It is mainly geographic but also linguistic and historical. The Anishinaabe are a group of culturally related nations who speak dialects of the Anishinaabemowin language. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa, stretch across a wide area from Ontario to Minnesota and beyond. The Odawa traditionally lived near the Ottawa River Valley, and the Potawatomi were based around Georgian Bay and further south around Lake Michigan, though many were displaced. The Mississaugas settled primarily in southern Ontario. While they share cultural foundations, each group has distinct histories, migration stories, and regional practices.
Jacobsen: The Anishinaabe are often translated as “original people” or “spontaneous beings,” they are tied to “Mother Earth” and “spiritual emergence.” What does that name signify within the culture?
Cook: Anishinaabe is often translated as “original person” or “first person.” It reflects the belief that our people were created and have always been here—on what we call Turtle Island. In many oral traditions, there are creation stories, including that of Sky Woman, though this version is more prominent among the Haudenosaunee(Iroquois). Among the Anishinaabe, the tale of Nanaboozho is central—he is a cultural hero and teacher who helped shape the world. These stories reflect a worldview grounded in a relationship—with the land, the animals, the elements, and one another—not in dominion or hierarchical worship.
Specific to the Anishinaabe people, there’s a story of our ancestors—the Lenape (or Leni Lenape) from the East Coast—being our predecessors. The Anishinaabe people are said to have split off and migrated westward, following a sacred object known as the megis shell. It is a type of seashell. We followed its appearance and migrated to places where wild rice—manoomin—grew, ultimately reaching the Great Lakes and settling in areas like Minnesota, which marked the endpoint of this ancestral migration.
Jacobsen: What is the significance, within traditional practices, of things like birch bark, wild rice harvesting, and clan systems as part of the Anishinaabe worldview and social structure?
Cook: Good question. So, the teachings of the Seven Grandfathers instructed that our people should follow the megis shell, and we would stop where we found wild rice. As I mentioned, the Anishinaabemowin word is manoomin. Wild rice was—and still is—a staple food and ceremonial plant for the Anishinaabe. Its presence indicated where we were meant to settle.
Birch bark was—and remains—immensely important. It was used to build our traditional homes—wigwams, not tipis. Tipis are associated with Plains cultures, but our homes were dome-shaped structures covered in birch bark.
The Midewiwin society—the keepers of ancient and ceremonial knowledge—used birch bark scrolls to record teachings, medicines, songs, and instructions for building Mide lodges. These scrolls served as a traditional archive. Birch bark also had everyday uses: for containers, canoes, and art.
We also interacted extensively with other nations, including the Haudenosaunee Confederacy—the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Oneida. Later, the Tuscarora joined, forming the Six Nations. Through this contact—both peaceful and hostile—we came to share some elements like the agricultural trio called the Three Sisters: corn, beans, and squash. These came more from our interactions than from our ancestral practices.
Jacobsen: You mentioned conflict. What were the historical bases of some of these clashes between the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee?
Cook: Primarily, it was about control of the Great Lakes region, especially trade routes. This was pre-European contact, so before 1497—when John Cabot explored parts of what is now Canada—and certainly before 1603, when Samuel de Champlain arrived. The Great Lakes were vital corridors of commerce, diplomacy, and warfare. A complex trade web stretched across the continent—copper from Lake Superior, shells from the coast, obsidian, tobacco, etc.
The Haudenosaunee traditionally occupied the south side of Lake Ontario, while the Anishinaabe, including the Potawatomi, Odawa, and Mississaugas, were on the north side. These three groups comprised the Council of the Three Fires, a longstanding alliance rooted in kinship and defence.
The conflicts intensified after Champlain allied with the Wendat (also called the Huron), who had accepted the Jesuit missionaries and their Christian teachings. The Jesuits introduced not only religion but also disease, which devastated many Indigenous communities. Champlain and his Wendat allies—including some Ojibwe—launched attacks on the Haudenosaunee south of the lake. That began a cycle of violence and displacement that lasted for centuries.
Jacobsen: That’s quite the historical sweep. Growing up, what was your sense—within your Indigenous community and in nearby non-Indigenous communities—of the mythologies or perceptions each had of the other?
Cook: That’s a rich topic. The mythologies held by each group—Indigenous or settler—about one another were often oversimplified or distorted. Indigenous communities saw settlers as disconnected from the land, lacking the spiritual and relational teachings that tie people to place. On the other hand, settlers often romanticized Indigenous people or reduced us to caricatures—either the “noble savage” or the “vanishing Indian.” Meanwhile, different Indigenous nations had their own stories and rivalries, often shaped by centuries of conflict, trade, and adaptation.
Jacobsen: Regarding social mythologies specifically, what kinds of stories or collective ideas did Indigenous communities have about surrounding non-Indigenous people, and vice versa? And I mean not religious mythologies like Christian beliefs in an intervening God or Indigenous cosmologies like the creation of Turtle Island, but more about the social perceptions communities held about one another. Also, are you speaking from personal experience growing up or from a more historical lens?
Cook: That’s a good question—and I think both apply. Historically, and in my experience, those perceptions have shifted significantly over time.
Going back to the early contact era—when Champlain was active in this region—you had the Wendat (also known as the Huron) accepting, or at least entertaining, Christian missionaries like the Jesuits. That affected how other nations, including the Haudenosaunee, viewed Wendat and the newcomers. But in those early days, there weren’t many non-Indigenous people in Ontario—just a few priests and fur traders—so social mythologies were formed based on limited interaction.
As colonization progressed—particularly during the expansion of Ontario’s colonization roads in the 19th century—Indigenous people in many areas were respected for their deep knowledge of the land, for trade, and for helping early settlers survive. My family has a cottage about an hour and a half north of here, and there’s a long history of cooperation between Indigenous communities and pioneers. There was absolute mutual respect, at least in some areas.
But then things shifted. Public perceptions began souring by the 1960s and 1970s, especially among non-Indigenous people. Many stereotypes took hold—things like alcoholism, laziness, or exemptions from taxation—which created resentment and suspicion. A lot of this was media-driven. People formed their opinions not from direct interaction with Indigenous people but from distorted narratives coming out of other regions or from sensationalized news.
I remember vividly the Oka Crisis in 1990. It was centred in Kanesatake and Akwesasne, Mohawk territories in Quebec, and had ripple effects across the country. Suddenly, many non-Indigenous Canadians—especially in Ontario and Quebec—developed very negative views of Indigenous people, even if they had never met one in their lives. It was a myth-building through fear and media framing.
But today, things are changing with the ongoing work of Truth and Reconciliation and the broader public access to accurate historical information. Conversations are more open. There’s greater willingness—among non-Indigenous people especially—to listen, learn, and reconsider those long-held social mythologies. Today’s understanding is more grounded in reality than it used to be.
I was working hard to raise awareness about something that deeply concerned me. An NDP Member of Parliament from Winnipeg introduced a private member’s bill that would have criminalized the denial of the residential school system.
Jacobsen: How did that go over?
Cook: Well, while I believe that residential schools were a horrific part of Canadian history—and that the intergenerational trauma they caused is still being felt today—I don’t think criminalizing denial helps truth and reconciliation. And it certainly doesn’t support the free speech rights of non-Indigenous Canadians.
I’ve had many conversations with people who didn’t believe in or understand the impacts of residential schools. I often wonder whether I could have had those conversations if a law had made such speech a felony. I’m relieved to say that the bill did not pass the first reading in the House of Commons.
Jacobsen: That’s good to hear. That’s a win for open discourse. These conversations will be exploratory, and while there will be common themes and throughlines, we’ll also encounter offshoots. That issue you raised—around free speech and truth-seeking—is critical. It resonates across different communities in Canada.
How do different communities, in your experience—Francophone, Anglophone, Indigenous, and others—view universal rights commonly claimed internationally, such as freedom of expression or speech, especially as they’re articulated in the U.S.? How are those rights viewed, upheld, or contested in public, private, or sacred spaces within these cultural contexts?
Cook: That’s a great question, but I am unlikely to answer comprehensively since I live in one small corner of southern Ontario. I can only speak to what I’ve seen locally.
But it’s interesting. One thing that stands out is how cultural shifts in Indigenous communities—both on reserves and among urban Indigenous populations—have been influenced by younger generations attending Indigenous Studies programs in colleges and universities. I’ve been involved for over 35 years in the Elders’ Conference at Trent University in Peterborough. The tone and focus of that gathering have changed dramatically over the decades.
Like the rest of North America, there is a widening political divide. On the right wing, there tends to be skepticism about what is seen as special rights or accommodations for Indigenous peoples—questions about responsibilities and accountability. On the left wing, particularly within academic environments, there’s often a tendency to avoid saying anything that could be construed as challenging the dominant narratives taught in Indigenous Studies courses.
You risk being accused of creating an “unsafe” environment; honestly, I find that term increasingly vague. It used to refer to a physical threat, but now it can mean someone holds a different opinion from you on campus—the redefinition of “unsafe” to include disagreement.
I’m rambling now, but my answer to your question is elsewhere.
Jacobsen: It’s like that old Billy Connolly joke about getting older—he says (and I’m paraphrasing here, Jacobsenizing it): when you’re young, someone comes into town and asks you for directions to the gas station. You confidently lift your arm, point with your finger, and say: “Go two streets north, take a left, then a right. You’ll be at Smith and Cook Avenue. The gas station’s right there. You’re good to go.”
“Thank you for that, sir. Have a good day.”
Then you get to middle age, and you just sort of wave vaguely with your arm—”Yeah, it’s over there, young man.”
And by the time you’re in your eighties, you’re lifting your leg and going, “Over there!” You know? It’s somewhere in that general direction.
Cook: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Somewhere in that general direction—that’s precisely it. Now, a pattern in public discourse connects to what you’ve just described. When people speak in the terms you just used—thoughtfully but with nuance—they are sometimes misunderstood, either deliberately or inadvertently. That misunderstanding is then used as grounds to accuse them of dismissing Indigenous teachings or even of being belligerent toward those who describe themselves as feeling unsafe.
How do you feel when you hear someone attributing motives like that to things you genuinely believe? How are your views being mischaracterized—or, on the more benign side, how are they being misunderstood?
Cook: That’s a great question. I love to philosophize, so stand by… [Laughing]
You’ve captured the polarization well. Some people, yes, are intentionally provocative—they want to be misunderstood or create conflict. On the other hand, there’s a tendency to be hyper-vigilant—a kind of eagerness to pounce on any statement that might not align perfectly with what’s expected. They say it becomes a race to display our virtue or signal.
But the reality lies in the middle. And that’s where the real work of democracy and dialogue happens.
We think of democracy as voting for someone who disappears into a legislature to make decisions. But in truth, democracy is the conversation. It’s the dialogue we have as a society.
If you look at small Indigenous bands historically, decisions were made collectively: where to move, when to hunt, how to respond to challenges. That was real, participatory decision-making—consensus-based. As populations grew and governance became more complex, that model had to evolve. However, the essential ingredient remains: meaningful dialogue that defines the middle ground.
To bring this back to Indigenous roots, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy—the union of the Five (later Six) Nations—is often cited as one of the inspirations for American democracy. That system of deliberative councils and consensus-seeking is a powerful model.
Unfortunately, today, we’ve moved far from that. We’re at a point where people on opposite ends of the spectrum can no longer even speak to each other. Everyone sees the other as an enemy rather than someone with a different perspective.
You’re right. On both extremes, it’s not about understanding anymore—it’s about triggering a reaction or defending territory. But democracy cannot survive without conversation, and we lose a lot when we abandon the middle ground.
It’s about active listening. Listening so that you can hear someone and repeat what they just said to demonstrate understanding rather than interrupting to make your point. That’s missing from many conversations now.
I have a theory about that. When I worked for a vast Fortune 50 corporation, I had the honour of contributing to DARPANet, which was the predecessor to what we now call the Internet. I was on the front lines of Internet development in Canada and North America—working on IP addressing, how networks function, how computers talk, and so on.
Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked on efforts related to the World Wide Web and how it could be opened for commercial use. The Web was envisioned as a beautiful, global network of connections—a web of shared knowledge, freely accessible and interactive.
But this Web has become a series of cocoons. People don’t hear each other anymore. Instead, they’re caught in echo chambers, where they only receive information reinforcing their beliefs.
Algorithmic polarization: The algorithms behind social media platforms now filter content so that you rarely encounter ideas that challenge your worldview. If you lean left, your feed is filled with progressive content. If you lean right, you get conservative content.
So, instead of a web connecting people and ideas, we’ve ended up with millions of isolated and insulating bubbles. People don’t even know that other perspectives exist anymore. They hear their thoughts reflected on them.
Jacobsen: That’s not off-topic—it’s a key part of this discussion. What people now call virtue signalling, for instance—it’s not a new phenomenon. We talk about it more explicitly now.
Looking at the last five to twenty-five years, you can see it evolve in public discourse. For example, on the left, wearing a rainbow lapel pin signals affiliation and values. On the right, someone might wear a Christian cross. Both are symbolic affirmations of identity and belief systems. It’s the same impulse, just expressed differently depending on the group.
When people talk about “wokeness,” it’s not fundamentally different from the conversations around identity politics we saw in the 1990s. Those earlier discussions were more implicit, while today’s are explicit—partly because of the digital tools you helped build: the Internet, social media, and open commentary platforms. Everything is exposed now; everything is analyzed or debated instantly.
So we’ve seen this explosion of neologisms—some serious, some silly—all part of a broader cultural shift toward explicit signalling. But returning to our core topic—Anishinaabe culture—we’ve been reflecting on Midewiwin, the Grand Medicine Society.
Cook: [Laughing] Sorry—I have an opinion on everything.
Jacobsen: No, that’s fine. That’s the point of this kind of dialogue—to explore thoughts that aren’t usually expressed inside the Beltway or in typical public discourse. And it’s also an opportunity to bring cultural memory and philosophical perspective into deeper public awareness.
Jacobsen: We discussed the Ojibwe and some of the broader Anishinaabe identity. But what about the more spiritual or ceremonial aspects—the degrees of initiation, moral teachings, balance, healing, herbal medicine, medicine lodges, chanting, and drumming?
You carried the fight, so to speak. You lived with both the theoretical understanding and practical application of this worldview. How did traditional beliefs frame ideas like the world and the Creator? Would you say that worldview is monotheistic—or is that a result of Christian influence, shaping the image of an intervening Creator?
Cook: Again, I can only speak from personal experience—and it’s important to note that Indigenous cultures are oral traditions. So, everything gets passed down through storytelling, and every elder brings their knowledge, memory, and philosophy to their teaching.
The result is that the stories vary. No matter how much we respect the teachings or the history, there’s no such thing as a single, unchanging version. As I’ve gotten older—and now consider myself an elder—I’ve become acutely aware of how fragile memory can be and how much responsibility it takes to carry those stories forward.
When I was younger, the culture I was taught was not formalized. It was experiential—you learned by being there, by participating. There were seasonal rhythms—like telling stories in the winter, an established cultural practice—but the storytelling was light-hearted, even humorous. There wasn’t the solemnity I see today.
Over time, things have become much more formal. There’s now a strong emphasis on protocols, like clearly stating your name, your community of origin, and your clan and doing so in Anishinaabemowin (our language), even if that’s the only part of the language someone knows. There’s also the expectation to establish credibility—to show who your elders were, who taught you, and whether you are authorized to share what you’re about to say.
That wasn’t the case when I was younger. But now, the role of “Traditional Knowledge Keeper” is formalized and widely used, especially in academic settings and government relations. A big part of that came from the rise of Indigenous Studies programs at universities. Those programs needed structure, so they created protocols to ensure that only those with proper knowledge and cultural authority could teach or share stories.
I understand its intent—ensuring authenticity and preventing cultural misappropriation—but the formality has become quite rigid. It’s now common that, right after someone introduces themselves, they’ll light a smudge—often using a smudge bowl made from an abalone shell, even though abalone isn’t from this region. The same goes for sage, which is not traditional to all territories but is now widely used.
So, there’s been much cross-pollination—ceremonial blending—between First Nations across Canada’s diverse regions. Historically, hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct communities, nations, and cultural protocols—from coast to coast. But now, there’s a kind of pan-Indigenous ceremonial standardization, where some practices have become symbolic shorthand for Indigenous identity, regardless of their geographic origin.
And over time, there’s been much blending—so much so that if you attend a powwow anywhere in North America, you’ll likely see women dancing in traditional jingle dresses. It’s a regalia adorned with 365 cones, often made from the lids of snuff cans. Each cone represents a day of the year and is specifically sewn onto the dress. The sound they produce during the dance is part of the healing tradition.
It’s become that rigid, formalized—and you can now see consistently from Mexico to the northern territories. Well, perhaps less so among Inuit communities, but certainly within a broad swath of First Nations and Native American cultures, you see this kind of cultural homogenization.
Jacobsen: So, let me ask you this. What’s your take on Canada’s earlier cultural flashpoints—the Oka Crisis? How do you see those moments now?
Cook: Oh, wow. The Oka Crisis (1990) was a defining moment for Canada, especially for people in Ontario and Quebec—the so-called centre of Canada. It was the first time that many Canadians had to confront the reality that there were unresolved land disputes, some going back centuries, and that Indigenous people were not a relic of the past. They were present, organized, and resisting.
It forced the conversation into the open and made people aware that fundamentally different worldviews were at play—particularly sovereignty, land stewardship, and historical injustice. But like most big cultural moments, it also became deeply polarizing.
Some people were severely injured—people throwing stones—and others were offering help and support. A similar situation happened here in Ontario with the Ipperwash Provincial Park standoff (1995) when the Premier sent in the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). They shot and killed Dudley George, a young man who was not posing any physical threat. It became an embarrassment and a tragedy.
Events like Ipperwash and Oka truly set the stage for the emergence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They pushed the public to realize that something needed to change—that Canadians needed to become more aware of Indigenous history, the longstanding injustices, and the ongoing consequences Indigenous communities still face as a result. They were defining moments—significant events.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting a bit more toward the central focus of this project—when we talk about people who reject supernaturalism or theistic interpretations of belief within Indigenous traditions, there’s often a social cost.
In European, Anglo, and Franco-North American cultures, people who reject religion or belief in God are often met with a wide range of slurs—“devil-worshipper,” “possessed,” “demonic,” “immoral,” “untrustworthy,” “disgusting,” and so on. These labels don’t function as intellectual arguments—they’re emotional reactions. They show up in polling and population studies as deeply ingrained sentiments toward atheists and humanists.
This prejudice has real economic, social, familial, and professional consequences. Take the example of a woman in a fundamentalist Christian community working at a university with doctrinal covenants. If she gets divorced, that can be considered grounds for dismissal or social shunning. The emotional pain can be deep—and neuroscience tells us that social rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain.
Now, within a Canadian Indigenous context, particularly in Anishinaabe communities, are there slurs or informal labels used to describe those who reject traditional beliefs—especially those from Indigenous backgrounds themselves? And how do those social dynamics unfold?
Cook: Great question. The only epithet I can remember growing up was for Native people who were seen as “not Native enough.” In other words, if someone had adopted more mainstream, settler characteristics, they’d be called an “apple”—red on the outside, white on the inside. That’s the only derogatory term I ever heard used within the community.
In Anishinaabemowin, there are some terms for non-Native people that can carry a derogatory tone depending on how they’re used. I remember one elder in particular who always referred to white people with a specific term—though I haven’t heard it used in a long time. I don’t know the exact linguistic root of the word, but it was always spoken with a tone of contempt, so it carried weight.
But to your main point—no, I haven’t heard specific slurs or labels used against Indigenous atheists or secular people within the community. You’re right, though: in broader society, people who reject supernatural beliefs get hit with negative assumptions. But I haven’t observed a structured vocabulary around that kind of rejection within Anishinaabe communities, at least not in my experience.
Jacobsen: I mean, if you’re only hearing epithets in English, as opposed to, say, Finnish or Arabic or Anishinaabemowin, does that in itself serve as a kind of psycho-cultural commentary on the use—or limitation—of slurs?
Cook: That’s a good question. I don’t know. There could be all kinds of factors contributing to that dynamic. It might also be that not everyone speaks Anishinaabemowin fluently enough anymore to use slurs in the original language—or even to recognize them if they’re used. So, if those sentiments are expressed, they’re more likely to appear in English, where they’re understood. It’s tough to say what the root of that would be.
Jacobsen: If there’s not much in terms of verbal slurs, then what about other forms of social consequences? Not necessarily professional impacts—but gossip, social standing, and social status. That’s a big part of any culture.
Cook: Absolutely. I think there are all kinds of social consequences for not following what I’d call the “received wisdom”—the currently accepted norms or teachings within the community.
Before we started recording, I told you about a social worker I know who worked for Native Family Services. He’s about fifteen years younger than I am. He grew up on a reserve, and although he identifies as Indigenous, he eventually felt forced to leave his position.
He struggled with expecting every meeting to begin with a smudging ceremony, prayers, sage, abalone shells, eagle feathers, etc. He was told he’d be required to take turns leading the ceremonies—to say the opening prayer, light the smudge, and perform those protocols.
When he said he didn’t want to participate, the response was unsupportive. He wasn’t given space to opt-out. He was made to feel very uncomfortable—like he wasn’t “Native enough.” So yes, even in the workplace, there are real consequences for not conforming to certain spiritual expectations.
Jacobsen: That’s significant.
Cook: It is. Because so much of what is now called “Native culture” is deeply tied to spiritual practice. And I use the word spiritual here more in the religious sense—because when something is no longer optional when it’s mandatory, it stops being about personal spirituality and becomes more like a codified belief system—almost like organized religion.
Jacobsen: That distinction makes much sense.
Cook: For example, when I was growing up, women were not allowed to sit at the big ceremonial drums. There were strict gender roles embedded in the ceremonial life. There was much pushback from the 1960s through the 1980s, especially as broader society moved toward women’s equality. But in many Indigenous communities, especially in ceremonial contexts, women were still restricted from participating fully—particularly if they were on what we call their moon time.
During their menstrual cycle, during their moon, women were often expected to abstain from participating in ceremonies. That was the tradition. But that tradition has also been challenged, especially by younger generations. Still, even today, there are ongoing tensions around these issues. So again, when spiritual practices become mandatory, especially in public or professional settings, they stop being spiritual personally and start resembling an institutional system of belief.
So, during their menstrual cycle, women were not allowed to participate in certain aspects of ceremonial life—sometimes even to the extent of not being in the presence of men during specific spiritual events. There are separate ceremonies for men and women. I have many teachings I’m not permitted to share with women, and my wife has teachings she’s not allowed to share with men.
There are still very distinct roles for men and women. For example, women are the carriers of water at ceremonies. Only women are permitted to touch the water and prepare it. Women traditionally gather the so-called “sacred medicines”—cedar, sage, sweetgrass, and tobacco.
Then, there are specific ceremonial medicines—some used only by women and others only by men. I have to be careful here not to share teachings that could get me into trouble, but yes, there are medicines restricted by gender.
During menstruation, a woman on her moon cannot participate in ceremonies and is expected to avoid ceremonial grounds. At full moon, women’s ceremonies celebrate the menstruation cycle, while men hold their parallel gatherings—often involving cleaning ceremonial pipes, for example. These dual ceremonies happen every full moon.
It’s challenging to separate cultural from spiritual or religious aspects because the two are deeply entwined in Indigenous traditions. But what’s clear is that gender plays a significant role in determining who can do what within ceremonial life.
And if you don’t believe in those teachings—if you’re an Indigenous atheist or secular humanist—there are social ramifications. Questions arise: Can you participate in ceremonies? Can you be a dancer at a powwow?
Let me give an example. I helped create a Native cultural community centre here in the Durham region of Ontario, where I live. We didn’t have any services for what we used to call urban Indians—people living off-reserve in urban areas. So we created this centre to offer programming and support. I was elected chief of that organization’s council.
Now, I used to get into trouble constantly. In Anishinaabe culture, people dance clockwise around the drum at powwows. But here, we also have Haudenosaunee people—alongside Inuit and other First Nations folks—who have different ceremonial expectations. For example, some Haudenosaunee teachings say you must dance counterclockwise around the drum.
So, what do you do in an urban setting where one group deeply believes in dancing clockwise and another holds just as strongly to dancing counterclockwise?
That’s a powerful image—and pretty funny. It is a sort of ceremonial traffic jam. It shows how diverse Indigenous cultures are, even among just the First Nations, not to mention Métis and Inuit peoples. It also highlights the challenge of creating inclusive ceremonial spaces in urban environments—where you’re not just dealing with intercultural dynamics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people but also intracultural tensions within Indigenous communities themselves.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of the diversity in Christian traditions, too. For instance, the modern evangelical movement in the U.S. and Canada is relatively uniform. However, traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism remain distinct, owing to their long historical separation—between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Pope.
Cook: Right—and even within those traditions, each has its own internal governance, rituals, and symbolic systems, just like us.
Jacobsen: That’s correct. And in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarch is called “first among equals”—a primus inter pares. However, The Catholic Church does not see the Pope that way. So there’s a lateralization of hierarchy in Eastern Orthodoxy that you don’t see in Catholicism, where the hierarchy is more pyramidal.
Given that, though—and more to the point ritualistically—both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, from what I’ve seen in their communities, have a very intricate ceremonial life. I don’t mean “better,” just more complex in structure, especially compared to modern evangelical or prosperity gospel movements, which tend to be simpler in ritual and more overtly political in tone after their Sunday services.
From what you describe about the Anishinaabe, I understand that the rituals are deeply tied to place, history, and cultural memory. Almost everything is done within a spiritual context, whereas in Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, the rituals are rich and symbolic. However, many adherents return to their regular, often secular, lives after the liturgy.
Cook: I think that’s fair. I also believe that a kind of hierarchy of belief or ritual commitment exists within Anishinaabe communities. Let me go back to an example.
Just north of here—about a twenty-minute ride on Lake Scugog—there’s a First Nation where I have many ties. I probably spent as much time there as I did on Rice Lake, where I grew up. That community had a longstanding chief lineage—a family that had held that leadership position across several generations.
But I remember from back then that there wasn’t much visible spiritual practice. It all seemed private; at least, that’s how I experienced it.
Just before COVID, I went up to visit friends in that community. I dropped into the health centre and chatted with some people about my history with the Nation. I’d helped them re-establish the powwow there about thirty or thirty-five years ago. At the time, they had never held a powwow, but I’d been involved in running a successful one in Oshawa for about five or six years. They asked me to help organize their first one—show them how to build the arbour for the drum according to tradition, invite elders, and how to structure the event.
When I visited more recently, I spoke about possibly getting more involved in the community again. But they asked me directly whether I was Midewiwin—or Mide, as it’s often shortened. They implied that if I wasn’t, I might not be welcome like I once was.
That’s a community I grew up in. But they had started holding Midewiwin ceremonies regularly, and those come with a much more formal structure. So yes, there’s a hierarchy there. That particular spiritual tradition—the Midewiwin or Grand Medicine Society—requires a kind of adherence to specific teachings, ceremonies, and protocols.
You could compare it loosely to a Masonic lodge in structure—not in content, but in how it’s organized into degrees or levels. As you advance, you gain access to more profound teachings, some of which are kept secret or sacred until you reach a certain level or have participated for several years.
Jacobsen: That’s a very structured system. You mentioned earlier the status of women as a factor. Most cultures at least pay lip service to the ideals the international community promotes—things like gender equality and inclusivity.
What parts of traditional or historical Indigenous culture—specifically Anishinaabe—do you see as genuinely practicing gender parity? And conversely, where is that parity lacking? Especially in today’s conversation, are there ways that transcendental, supernatural, or extra-material justifications are used to explain or defend those inequalities—or even to silence criticism?
Cook: Great question. Let me start with something I touched on earlier—women sitting at the drum. Today, if you attend powwows—certainly in this region—you will see women sitting at the main drum and singing, the big drum representing Mother Earth’s heartbeat. Traditionally, women used smaller hand drums, usually 12 to 18 inches in diameter, and men sat at the big drum. That’s changed. There’s no more gender parity in that ceremonial role, at least in some communities.
As for justifications for maintaining older traditions or exclusions—yes, there are stories. Indigenous cultures often preserve and transmit social structures through traditional narratives. These stories are told to explain why things are the way they are, often in spiritual or cosmological terms.
To give you a tangible example: at a powwow, a man can dress however he likes—shorts, a T-shirt, and running shoes. He’ll still be allowed into the circle to dance. Some of us old-timers still wear ribbon shirts and regalia, of course. But if a woman shows up in a dress that doesn’t go to her ankles, someone will almost certainly take her aside, ask her to change, or even leave the circle.
That gender-specific expectation is still very much present—at least here. It could certainly be viewed as restrictive or patriarchal from a mainstream cultural lens. However, within the culture, teachings passed to women help contextualize and justify these expectations. Whether you see it as subjugation or sacred protocol depends on your frame of reference.
Jacobsen: That reflects a broader tension—between cultural tradition and modern equality frameworks. And I’ve seen this tension play out even in international settings. I did two weeks of journalism in mid-March at UN headquarters in New York City during the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69). I sat in on an entirely Indigenous-led session with a panel of Canadian Indigenous women—both young and older voices.
The stories shared were incredibly moving. There were moments during the panel when there was open crying—not just among the speakers but also among the audience. The speakers discussed intergenerational trauma, displacement, gender-based violence, resilience, leadership, and cultural renewal.
That kind of setting brings out the depth of these issues. It shows how women’s voices in Indigenous communities—especially when given a platform—often expand and complicate the narrative beyond the neat boxes that institutions like the UN try to put things in.
These weren’t minor figures either—these were foremost Canadian Indigenous leaders, speaking candidly. At the same time, you had high-profile figures like Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, walking through because he had other meetings—there was this strange mix of formality and intimacy.
What struck me most, though, was how it tied back to what you mentioned earlier—the consciously inflicted tragedy of the residential school system. What I saw in that room wasn’t necessarily what I’d call healing, at least not in the clinical or complete sense. It was more like people were, at that moment, relieving themselves of the burden of silence—finally saying things aloud that had weighed on them.
To me, that release—while powerful—is private and not always therapeutic in the lasting sense. It’s more like a momentary purging. It’s the difference between washing a wound and disinfecting and stitching it. That open expression of pain, especially in a public space where others have shared history if not identical experiences, creates a kind of communal recognition.
Now, the women themselves would describe it far more eloquently and precisely. However, that was the emotional atmosphere I absorbed from that session at the UN in New York. That said, this living history is not something we can choose to ignore. It’s here, whether we talk about it or not. That brings me to this: Are there contexts in which traditional beliefs can offer an anchor, a sense of grounding—but where supernatural elements or superstitions surrounding those beliefs may not serve long-term health or healing?
I’m thinking here of something Noam Chomsky once shared. He described knowing an immigrant mother who had lost her child. She found deep comfort in the belief that she would be reunited in heaven with her child after her death.
Chomsky, of course, didn’t believe in that promise. But he also didn’t try to strip her of that consolation. He understood that in the moment, it brought genuine emotional relief. Still, he questioned whether that kind of belief system, while temporarily comforting, is ultimately sustainable or healthy. It’s sort of like using an antidepressant or anxiolytic for a period of acute need—but then pairing that with practical life changes or cognitive tools that support longer-term well-being.
Over time, you wean off the medication, and you’re left with sustainable skills and insights. In this way, the person can integrate their trauma rather than escape it.
So, Can traditional Indigenous spirituality serve that kind of transitional function—providing ritual and meaning early on but eventually giving way to something more lasting, less myth-bound, and potentially more universal? They’re dealing with the context of their own life story.
Cook: Absolutely. And I have some pretty strong opinions about that—because I know so many people who experienced residential schools firsthand and who still live with that trauma. And what’s even more heartbreaking is how that trauma was often passed on. It created parents who didn’t know how to nurture or protect their children, and those children—now adults—passed the trauma on again to their kids. That’s the intergenerational trauma we keep talking about.
This is one of my core criticisms of Indigenous humanism as it is sometimes practiced today. One of its guiding ideas is the creation of strong communities rooted in culturally grounded mental and physical health programs tailored to Indigenous needs. While that’s well-intentioned, I worry that, in some cases, it does not address the root problems.
It’s similar to my broader critique of religion. As Marx said, it’s the opium of the masses—not because it’s inherently evil, but because it can offer a Band-Aid without providing honest answers. It may feel good to believe in the power of prayer. But to me, prayer and meditation are quite different. Meditation is an internal process, a focus on self-awareness and grounding. In many traditions, prayer involves asking for something, often from a higher power. That’s a very different kind of psychological engagement.
My point is this: religions tend to provide emotional scaffolding, a way of soothing pain. But mental health professionals can do that too, and in many cases, more effectively, without relying on superstition or magical thinking.
So, in the Indigenous context, when Native spirituality is used to help people cope, yes—it can offer comfort. But I also think it can delay more profound healing or perpetuate specific traumas under the guise of tradition. Some of this intergenerational pain might be addressed earlier and more effectively if we approached it with direct, evidence-based support instead of spiritualized frameworks alone.
Jacobsen: That’s a very personal critique. Speaking of personal—what about your own experience, living as an atheist within the community?
Cook: [Laughing] The short answer is: I’m not really “out.”
Jacobsen: Oh? Some people might be in for a surprise.
Cook: Yeah— Because honestly, it wasn’t hard for me to step away from social and ceremonial aspects of community life.
All of my elders, the people I deeply respected—the ones who made the Native community meaningful to me—have passed away. That’s the thing about being an elder: there’s only one destination, and we’re all moving quickly. (chuckles)
I’d had conversations with a few while they were still alive. They knew where I stood. They understood that for me, participating in ceremonies wasn’t about belief but culture and showing respect for our traditions and them.
For example, when I was growing up, the concept of a single, monotheistic Creator never really came up—at least not in any way I remember. That may have been introduced later or emphasized more heavily as Christian influence spread.
When we got into a canoe to cross a lake, we would put down tobacco at the edge of the water—or directly into the water—to honour and protect ourselves from the spirits believed to inhabit the area.
There’s a specific water spirit in Anishinaabe tradition, Mishipeshu, or the underwater panther. In our traditions, Mishipeshu lives in lakes and rivers. If you fail to pay proper respect, you might experience a storm, or your canoe could capsize, or worse. That spirit wasn’t just a story—it was part of the everyday consciousness of being on the land and water.
As a kid, when you were alone in the forest, we also had stories about Wendigos. There’s even a famous poem about them. In our culture, the Wendigo was this malevolent, ghost-like creature—part spirit, part cautionary tale. They were associated with greed, cannibalism, and spiritual imbalance. They lived in the woods and were a real part of the spiritual landscape.
Everyday life included constant gestures of respect toward nature and the spirits. In that way, it’s very similar to Shinto, the traditional Indigenous religion of Japan, where kami, or spirits, are found in rocks, trees, rivers, and mountains. That was the world I grew up in.
Even now, when I walk past a giant tree, I instinctively put my hand on it—not because I believe it will speak to me, but out of respect. So, maybe some of my “superstitious” thinking hasn’t completely left me. But for me, it’s not superstition—it’s about honouring the natural world around me. Or at least, that’s how I justify it now.
As a child, though, this wasn’t metaphorical. It was literal. We believed in individual spirits—everywhere. And this is deeply embedded in Anishinaabemowin, our language. The language doesn’t just have masculine and feminine genders, like French or Spanish—it also distinguishes between animate and inanimate nouns.
And what’s considered “animate” isn’t always what Western culture would define that way. A boulder, for instance—a glacial erratic you might stumble upon in the forest—is considered animate because it has spirit. We’d refer to it as a grandfather, a being who has been there since time immemorial.
In the sweat lodge ceremony, when heated stones are brought in, they’re not just “rocks”—they are greeted as grandfathers (Mishomis) and treated with reverence. That’s the spirituality I grew up with. It’s not monotheistic or dogmatic, just interwoven with the land, the water, and the life around us
Jacobsen: How are you distinguishing Indigenous humanism (or Native humanism) from secular humanism? And why don’t we collapse the terms under something broader like Humanists International’s definition of humanism?
Cook: Because they’re not the same. In some ways, yes—there’s overlap, and they can work together in many areas, but at a fundamental level, they’re incompatible.
Secular humanism is grounded in reason, science, and ethics without reliance on the supernatural. It emerged from the Age of Reason, and its philosophical foundations rest on empirical evidence, reproducibility, and skeptical inquiry.
On the other hand, Indigenous humanism is deeply embedded in spirituality and cultural tradition. Spirituality and culture are not separable in Indigenous contexts. There’s no culture without spirituality and no spirituality without culture. They’re intertwined.
Indigenous humanism also emphasizes connection to nature, reverence for the land, and relational thinking, aligning with some of secular humanism’s environmental ethics. So there’s common ground, especially around values like sustainability and community well-being.
However, the gap becomes philosophically significant when one worldview is based on ancestral wisdom, oral tradition, and what’s now often called “alternative ways of knowing,” and the other is based on scientific rationalism.
Jacobsen: What do you make of attempts to merge the two—to create some hybrid identity between Indigenous and secular humanism?
Cook: I think doing so requires a massive amount of cognitive dissonance. The two systems operate on very different epistemological foundations.
Secular humanism—again—is about what can be tested, measured, and replicated. It’s a product of Enlightenment thinking. Indigenous humanism is about lived experience, ancestral teachings, oral transmission, and sacred relationships with land and life. When someone tries to blend the two, they often end up unconsciously prioritizing one over the other or reframing one to fit the lens of the other.
And to be honest, the modern framing of “alternative ways of knowing” tends to get used in philosophically muddy ways. It can obscure more than it reveals, especially when not critically examined.
Jacobsen: Would it be fair to say that secular humanism doesn’t offer a “variety of ways of knowing” but a shared standard of inquiry?
Cook: It’s not about many truths—it’s about one standard for evaluating truth claims. In that sense, it doesn’t offer pluralism the way Indigenous frameworks do. And that’s where deep tensions arise when people try to conflate the two without acknowledging that.
So that concept—“ways of knowing”—is one that, as a secular humanist and as a scientist, I find very difficult to accept in a literal sense. I don’t believe there are multiple valid epistemologies when uncovering truth. There are ways of being, indeed—those are cultural. But I’m very skeptical of ways of knowing as alternative epistemic systems.
We know things through scientific inquiry and critical thinking—through processes that yield repeatable and reproducible results. That’s the foundation of empirical knowledge. Now, I know there’s a common critique that science is reductionist. That’s true, but reductionism has also given us tremendous insight into the natural world and a robust framework for understanding reality.
My experience has been that Indigenous ways of knowing are often tied to experiential learning—through direct engagement, observation, and interaction with the environment. This can be valuable as a teaching method and cultural transmission, but it is unreliable for discovering objective truths.
We’d still be stuck in a Newtonian physics model if we relied solely on direct experience as a path to knowledge. We wouldn’t have the relativity of Einstein or the quantum models of the subatomic world—because you can’t see those things with the naked eye. Much of what we now understand about the universe is counterintuitive, and it took sophisticated tools and models to uncover those truths.
The reality is that humans have cognitive biases—lots of them. And when we rely only on intuition, feeling, or observation without rigour, we risk being led astray. I often hear, even within Indigenous communities, references to people who claim psychic abilities or who say they “just know” something spiritually or emotionally about the land or the Creator—because of a sign or feeling only they can perceive. That’s very similar to what you hear in other religious traditions.
As a humanist, I struggle to understand how that could be called knowledge in any formal sense. We must be careful not to confuse belief or emotional insight with empirical evidence. Many people feel compelled to pay deference to Indigenous humanism because they have a genuine desire for reconciliation, respect, and inclusion. I support that. I respect the individuals.
But that doesn’t mean I have to respect the belief system—especially when the system makes claims unfalsifiable or unsupported by evidence. So, when someone says, “I know this is true because an elder told me,” it’s a classic example of an appeal to authority. By scientific standards, that doesn’t constitute knowledge.
To be clear, Indigenous humanism has beautiful and valuable elements. The ethical teachings, especially around respect for the environment, are profound. But even there, we must be honest—those values are not unique to Indigenous worldviews. Take Greta Thunberg, for example. She is not Indigenous, yet her environmental ethic is evident, principled, and powerful.
Jacobsen: We also need to distinguish between humaneness, as in compassion or emotional sensitivity, and humanism, as a defined philosophical and ethical worldview. You mentioned feelings earlier—that idea of having a feeling about a rock, a vibe from a place, or a sense about a person.
That kind of subjective experience—how I feel about a particular location or object—might be meaningful in a personal or cultural context. Still, it’s not a factual claim about that location’s chemistry, biology, or geophysics.
Those are different domains. One is about the internal emotional experience; the other is about objective external reality. Confusing the two can lead to misunderstandings within Indigenous communities and broader knowledge, belief, and truth discussions.
There’s a subjective fact there. You can describe how someone feels about something and that’s real for them. However, it does not represent the objective state of affairs external to the person. It’s not about the object itself but about how that person experiences the object.
So, there’s a difference between that kind of emotional resonance and what we might call the “woo-woo” formulation of a vibe. In the 1960s and 1970s, this vibe culture emerged among many Euro-American communities, especially within a hippie culture—a sort of diffuse, mystical energy reading of the world.
But that’s distinct from something like intuition. Sure, people can misunderstand or misuse intuition, but in many cases, intuition is grounded—it’s developed from experience and a deep familiarity with a field. For example, a scientist might have a hunch about a hypothesis or direction for research based on years of work, even before the data fully confirms it.
So those are subtle but important distinctions. And I think there’s a humanistic, empirical way to talk about those kinds of experiences—intuition, emotion, reverence—without turning them into mysticism or supernaturalism. That way, we respect the emotional or intuitive side of human understanding while remaining grounded in the natural world and a commitment to truth.
Cook: I agree. And earlier, you used the word “humaneness.” I think as a secular humanist, and in my case, not just an atheist but an anti-theist—because I believe religion does real harm—it’s still essential to recognize context. I don’t need to brandish my atheism in people’s faces.
If someone finds comfort at a funeral because they believe their loved one is in a better place, now is not the time to challenge them. That’s not compassion. A compassionate stance is central to secular humanism—the desire to support well-being and respect others, even if we don’t share their beliefs.
So I get it if someone tells me they had a powerful emotional experience in the woods—a deep sense of connection or reverence. I’ve stood under the aurora borealis and felt awe; that emotional reaction is human. It might arise from intuition, nature’s scale, or raw beauty. And that feeling can lead us into scientific exploration. The stars can move you, and you still want to understand the physics behind them.
So again, to return to what I said before, conversation is critical. We lose opportunities for shared understanding when we shut down dialogue or categorically dismiss something without engaging.
Many discuss integrating science and Indigenous humanism or bringing the two into respectful dialogue. I support that principle—as long as we maintain clarity about what we mean by knowledge, belief, emotion, and experience.
And probably the most controversial thing I’ll say is this: I don’t think there is anything uniquely Indigenous—in terms of knowledge or worldview—that doesn’t exist elsewhere. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable, but I question whether it’s epistemically unique. I’d go so far as to say that, in some cases, these cultural beliefs can have an adverse effect—they can hinder rather than help.
I have two anecdotal examples that shed light on what I mean.
First, I recently watched a documentary about bison in Yellowstone National Park. Researchers had long believed the bison population was dwindling because wolves had been reintroduced to the park. But after years of research and scientific reductionism—they discovered that the real culprit was lake trout.
Here’s how: the lake trout were predators of salmon, a primary food source for grizzly bears. And grizzlies, who usually don’t prey on bison outside of a very short period during calving, were now starving. The only time bears can kill bison is for about two weeks in the spring when the calves are still tiny. However, the bears hunted more young bison during that narrow window because of the salmon shortage. Wolves had not contributed to the bison population decline.
You can only arrive at that kind of conclusion through systematic scientific inquiry. You cannot deduce that from direct observation alone—not with any reliability. Yes, maybe you’d intuit that something upstream was causing the bears to behave differently, but then you would need to test that hypothesis in a repeatable and reproducible way. That’s how we know what’s happening.
The second example relates to archaeological research. The Smithsonian Institution has a vast collection of human skulls from all over the world. These have been used for anthropological, archaeological, and evolutionary research. Some of the skulls in the collection are of Indigenous origin.
The law rightly states that when the provenance—that is, the tribal or cultural origin—of a skull is known, it should be returned to that Indigenous group for repatriation and appropriate cultural handling. I fully support that.
But it becomes complicated here: many skulls have unknown or unverifiable provenance. And some Indigenous groups are now refusing to allow any study of those skulls. In some cases, female researchers are prohibited from touching the remains during certain times of the month based on ceremonial protocols. Even x-rays of the skulls—non-invasive digital scans—are sometimes requested to be returned or destroyed because they are also considered sacred representations of the remains.
Now, I ask—where do we draw the line? I find it very difficult to see how treating an X-ray as a sacred object benefits anyone, especially when we’re talking about the pursuit of human knowledge and scientific understanding that could benefit all people, including Indigenous communities themselves.
Jacobsen: That raises a lot of essential questions. As our mutual friend, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, often points out, the self—and, by extension, culture—is not static. It’s a dynamic process. Cultures evolve and adapt over time, as individuals do, at varying rates and ways.
How have you seen Indigenous culture evolve in Canada over the years? Some observers describe what’s happening now as a renaissance—a revival or reinvention of traditional knowledge and spiritual practice. Do you see it that way?
Others have observed something different—an integration between Indigenous cultures and Anglophone or Francophone Canadian culture, resulting in what might be called a hybrid identity, particularly among urban Indigenous peoples.
Then you have people—like yourself—taking a more universalistic approach, seeking frameworks that view the human species through a scientific lens. That’s the truth-based perspective, where ethnicity is understood as a sociological category, a layer we place over our shared biology.
This also ties into an epistemology that aspires to be universal—not necessarily in opposition to every microprocessor within broader “ways of knowing,” but certainly in tension with epistemological pluralism, which often rests on less rigorous foundations. By contrast, the scientific method offers a universal filter for arriving at objective truths about the world.
So, how have you seen these elements—cultural revitalization, hybridization, and scientific humanism—evolve during your lifetime?
Cook: Wow. That’s a big question.
Specifically regarding knowledge, I would say that Indigenous culture has crystallized—that is, it’s become more codified and standardized in ways that weren’t present when I was younger.
As I mentioned earlier, there’s been a homogenization of Indigenous cultures across North America. Historically, sharing between nations was done to support trade—cultural elements were exchanged pragmatically. But now we see deeper integration and standardization of ceremonial practices. From coast to coast to coast, there are often standard formats for things like vision quests, sweat lodges, powwows, and even the regalia worn at those gatherings.
Alongside this has come a more defined idea of Indigenous humanism, particularly regarding how knowledge is transmitted. There’s a growing emphasis on learning from elders, which is being passed on in Native Studies programs, language classes, and cultural revitalization efforts. The resurgence of Indigenous languages is one of the best things happening now. There’s nothing to criticize about strengthening cultural continuity—that’s essential and beautiful.
But where I start to think critically is in the epistemological space. All around the world, cultures have developed systems of knowledge—about the environment, healing, and ethics. Indigenous cultures have made meaningful contributions, for example, to agricultural practices like crop rotation or land stewardship. But I wouldn’t say those practices are uniquely Indigenous. Versions of them exist across many cultures globally.
And that’s where I think the scientific method offers something distinct—the process that has served us best since the Age of Reason. It begins with hypotheses, follows with testing, and leads to the development of theories—not just beliefs but replicable, predictive models.
I struggle sometimes to express this clearly, but what I’m getting at is that while the diversity of cultural worldviews is essential and enriching, when it comes to understanding the natural world, the scientific pursuit of knowledge remains the most reliable, universal process we have. That doesn’t invalidate cultural meaning-making, but we shouldn’t confuse it with empirical truth.
Of course, you understand how “theory” gets thrown around—“It’s just a theory.” But a scientific theory is far more than a hunch or intuition. It’s something that’s been tested rigorously, often in hundreds of different contexts, and has repeatedly held under those conditions.
That doesn’t mean it’s 100% guaranteed—it’s not absolute certainty—but it does mean that we haven’t yet found a way to disprove it. And that’s meaningful. That’s what knowledge grounded in evidence looks like.
That way of thinking is foundational for me—and this is how I’m wired, maybe because I come from a scientific background. There are Indigenous and scientific parts of me, but I can’t help it: I reason, believe in systems, and think in processes.
I have difficulty conceptualizing some of these so-called “other ways of knowing.” Throughout my life, I’ve understood the cultural teachings I received not as truth claims but as stories—valuable but not epistemologically authoritative.
So when I walk through the woods and put my hand on a tree, that action connects to something cultural—maybe even spiritual, in a poetic sense—but it feels like a kind of vestigial organ from that part of my heritage. It doesn’t represent the truth to me. As I see it, the truth comes from science and rational inquiry.
And I don’t know how we’re supposed to reconcile that tension. From my perspective, scientific thinking is still the best tool we’ve developed as a species to understand the world around us. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than anything else.
And the scientific method isn’t culturally exclusive. It may have been formalized during the European Enlightenment, but it’s been adopted and applied by cultures around the world. The cross-cultural sharing of scientific knowledge has done more to bend the moral arc of history than the exchange of supernatural or magical beliefs ever has.
Jacobsen: In the African American community in the United States, there’s often the perception that atheism or humanism is a “white thing.” Do you find anything similar in Indigenous communities in Canada—where science, secularism, or even atheism is seen as foreign, colonial, or somehow outside the cultural norm?
Cook: Oh. That perception exists.
And I think that’s part of the reason Indigenous humanism has taken root—it’s a kind of response to the perception that science, and by extension secular humanism, is a product of white Western culture. There’s a historical trauma there, of course, because science was often tied to colonial institutions—residential schools, anthropological exploitation, eugenics, resource extraction—you name it.
However, that distrust of science is not unique to Indigenous communities. Just look at the religious right in the United States. Much of that worldview is grounded in Christian fundamentalism, and it also treats science as a left-wing enemy.
So you get this strange convergence: one side rejects science because they see it as secular, the other see it as colonial—but both resist the same process that has arguably done the most to improve human life on a material and ethical level.
The current administration is actively dismantling scientific institutions and educational infrastructure because it sees science as foreign, something separate from its culture and worldview. So yes, after having been to many universities across Canada, I’ve never seen an Indigenous science class. I’ve seen Native Studies classes at virtually every institution—but not Indigenous-led science education that operates by scientific principles. That absence is telling.
Jacobsen: I often point out, for example, that however the Egyptians built the pyramids, it wasn’t “Egyptian engineering.”It was just engineering. It happened to be carried out by Egyptians, but it was part of the universal domain of human problem-solving. And the same applies to science. It emerges from culture, sure, but any one culture does not own it.
Cook: That’s exactly right. That’s why I made that flippant comment about Greta Thunberg—ethics, environmentalism, and scientific reasoning aren’t culturally bound. They’re philosophical systems we’ve developed as a species.
I’d say the opposite of what’s often claimed. One commonly repeated claim about Indigenous humanism is that it has forced science to become more ethical and environmentally aware. But I don’t believe that’s true.
Regardless of cultural background, many scientists are already working hard to integrate ethics, sustainability, and responsibility into research. That pressure didn’t have to come from any single cultural worldview. It’s not a unique contribution of Indigenous epistemology or any other cultural system. These are universal human concerns.
I mentioned this earlier: the moral arc of history is bending, but not because of culture. It’s bending because we’re becoming more interconnected and aware of how we are all part of the same planetary system. That’s where progress comes from—not from traditionalism, but often despite it.
Cultural frameworks can often become obstacles to progress. They assert, “That doesn’t fit my culture, so I can’t accept it.” But when you look at what has slowed human development, it’s often things like religious dogma, nationalism, and rigid racial or ethnic identities. These forces have stifled progress—not fostered it.
So, progress didn’t happen because of culture; in many cases, it happened despite culture.
Jacobsen: Do you think that some of the current emphasis on race and ethnicity, particularly in academic or professional contexts—using the language of “allies” and “identity”—might deter Indigenous people and other minorities who are genuinely interested in joining science or engineering departments?
In other words, does the intense focus on Indigeneity as identity, when applied to objective disciplines like science, inadvertently create a kind of self-re-racialization that alienates people from universal spaces of inquiry?
Cook: You know what? I hadn’t considered that before, but that’s a critical point.
Let me collect my thoughts without sounding too controversial right off the bat.
But yes—I would have to say yes.
I think all young people—regardless of background—reach a point where they have to decide the direction of their future: career, values, identity. For young people in Indigenous communities, especially on reserves, that decision can be even more complicated.
Some may enter fields like political science, sociology, or psychology, where they can gain knowledge and return to their communities to provide leadership or serve as advocates. That’s admirable.
But here’s where I get stuck: I have difficulty articulating this clearly, and I don’t know if it’s truly possible to keep one foot firmly in the culture and one foot in a scientific discipline—at least not without tension.
And maybe that’s not a fair generalization, either. Take anthropology, for example. That’s a scientific field where you could still honour and explore your cultural background. That could be a space where the two can coexist.
You know what? I don’t have a complete answer to this. It’s something I’d need to think more about. Speaking just for myself, my gut instinct is that I can’t do both. I can’t believe in the cultural stories as truths, and, at the same time, I am fully committed to science. But that’s just me—and I wouldn’t want to impose that view on others.
This is probably a research project in the making. We need a proper survey of Indigenous students—which career paths they’ve taken, especially those who’ve pursued STEM fields—and what kinds of internal or external tensions they’ve experienced. That’s your next project right there.
Jacobsen: Is there a kind of taboo around pursuing formal education—particularly using the academic vocabulary of the Anglophone world? I remember watching a documentary on educational attainment, where a Black British educator pointed out that, for some Black boys in the UK, having a strong English vocabulary was viewed as “acting white.” So, you get this intra-cultural stigma where academic achievement becomes a source of social deterrence.
Do you think something like that might be at play in Indigenous communities in Canada, too—where embracing science or formal academic discourse is seen as stepping away from the culture?
Cook: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know if I’ve experienced that.
I haven’t noticed students avoiding academic vocabulary in some Indigenous Studies classes I’ve taken at Trent University. The conversation is usually conducted as you’d expect in any university-level seminar. I didn’t get the sense that anyone was being stigmatized for speaking in that way or that it was seen as “too white.” Based on my experience, I haven’t witnessed that dynamic.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. Another way humanism is often summarized internationally is with the triad: reason, compassion, and science. Where do you see sufficient overlap between that kind of humanist framework and the values within Anishinaabe culture? I mean that we’ve talked about birch bark, the sacredness of nature, and the spiritual worldview in Anishinaabe culture, where rocks, trees, and rivers all have spirits. That’s quite different from a scientific-naturalist framework.
So, where do you see alignment points in broad strokes—places where secular humanism and Anishinaabe worldview might meaningfully intersect?
Cook: So there are some areas of overlap, though not necessarily the ones people assume. Given some of the things I’ve experienced—and again, it’s hard to define this solely as “Anishinaabe culture” because it has shifted quite a bit over my lifetime—I’d say the places where mainstream society and secular humanism intersect with Indigenous culture are rooted in respect.
That includes respect for history, traditions, culture, and older people—I’ll say older people rather than elders since the term elder has specific ceremonial and cultural significance.
There’s also respect for all living things, which is where environmentalism or environmental stewardship comes in. Then there’s the idea of balancing our lives—the physical, social, and emotional aspects of being. Even values like diversity and inclusion are embedded in Anishinaabe culture to varying degrees.
I’d also mention the pursuit of ethics and ethical behaviour. These aspects are part of Anishinaabe traditions and secular humanism’s fundamental premises.
Jacobsen: That’s generally what I was getting at. Far be it from me to be a fan of evangelicalism, but if we take Protestantism more broadly, there are specific values that, while not always embraced to the extreme, have merit. For example, there is an emphasis on work ethic, which has virtue, whether applied to building a family, community, infrastructure, business, or academic excellence.
But I think the dominionist strain—particularly the desire for political control under religious mandates—is corrosive. It’s at odds with the secular aims that most humanists value: freedom of thought, pluralism, and individual rights.
On the Indigenous side, I don’t gravitate toward supernaturalism, but I see value in the naturalistic emphasis found in many Indigenous spiritual teachings. It’s concrete and practical and reflects a deep awareness of interdependence.
The ethic of caring for the environment rather than asserting dominion over it seems far more appropriate—especially given where we are as a planet. So, no culture has a monopoly on wisdom, but I think if we take a fine-grained look at different espoused virtues, there’s a lot we can learn.
Cook: I agree.
Jacobsen: And, of course, we must also acknowledge that espoused values are not always lived. That’s true in every culture. People often say one thing and do another.
Cook: Right—and a lot of that, I think, is related to scale and scope. Most people, outside of those with diagnosed psychopathy or similar disorders, aren’t going out of their way to harm animals or inflict suffering just for the sake of it.
Ethical lapses stem more from systems, pressure, or disconnect than intentional cruelty. Those systems are shaped by histories and structures, not just individuals.
The sheer scale of the challenge—feeding 9 billion people globally—has created a significant tension between ethically desirable and operationally scalable. That’s one of the things I’d say about Indigenous humanism: there’s much talk about ethics, sustainability, and traditional methods. Those ideas are important but also easier to apply in small communities or enterprises.
When you zoom out to the planetary scale, it becomes much harder. Yes, you can rotate crops to preserve soil health. That’s good practice. But then you hit a wall: monocultures exist because they allow for massive food production. And if you remove them without scalable alternatives, you run the risk of people starving.
So while many of us would love to see greater sustainability, better treatment of animals, and more respect for traditional practices—especially in smaller, land-based societies around the world—the hard limits of global logistics can challenge those ideals.
Jacobsen: It becomes an issue of scale and how values operate differently depending on context.
Cook: And that’s where utilitarian philosophy comes into play: Jeremy Bentham. It’s really about doing the least harm when faced with difficult trade-offs.
Again, those ethical frameworks—balancing harms and considering outcomes—aren’t uniquely Indigenous or part of Indigenous humanism. They’re part of global ethical discourse. I’ve often heard atheists say, “If I had to write a list of Ten Commandments, I could come up with seven better ones than the original.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s a valuable thought experiment.
Cook: Absolutely. It helps clarify what values matter. Because let’s face it: we’re not hunter-gatherers anymore. And while the Haudenosaunee agricultural tradition of planting corn, beans, and squash in the same mound—with a fish for fertilizer—is a brilliant, sustainable method, it’s not practical for feeding billions.
Jacobsen: How much interaction have you had with global Indigenous groups—from places like Western Europe, Latin America, Africa, or elsewhere?
Cook: Virtually none. I’ve interacted with Indigenous Australians and am familiar with some of their traditions. And I’ve only had limited interactions with Inuit here in Canada. That’s why I try not to generalize too broadly. I know my cultural neighbourhood and try to speak from that place.
Jacobsen: Do you watch the news much?
Cook: Every day.
Jacobsen: When it comes to Indigenous issues—as they’re often referred to in Canadian media—what are the things that mainstream outlets are getting right, what are they getting wrong, and what are they ignoring or failing to cover adequately? I’m thinking specifically in terms of factual accuracy and proportionality.
Cook: That’s a big one. I think it’s hard to get mainstream media to pay attention to Indigenous issues unless Indigenous people themselves create what looks like a crisis.
Take the example of Chief Theresa Spence and her hunger strike. That pushed attention toward the Idle No More movement across Canada. It wasn’t until thousands of us took to the streets, raised flags, and blocked bridges that the broader public started to see issues like many First Nations communities lacking clean drinking water. These communities have been on boil water advisories for over 50 years.
That’s a critical issue—and it’s one that’s barely covered. It occasionally pops up in the media, but there’s no consistent attention. And because of that, municipal, provincial, and federal governments only respond when there’s noise. Even the current Liberal government, which talks a lot about reconciliation and Indigenous rights, hasn’t made anywhere near the progress they promised. And I think part of that is because mainstream media is not holding them accountable—there’s no sense of urgency being communicated to the broader public.
Jacobsen: So, what does the media get right, wrong, and ignore? What would you say?
Cook: Okay, let’s break it down.
What they get right: Occasionally, the media does highlight real issues—like lack of clean water or specific Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations. But it’s usually episodic and reactive, not consistent or systemic.
What they get wrong: Often, there’s a lack of nuance and a tendency toward sensationalism. For example, when unmarked graves were discovered at former residential school sites, the coverage quickly escalated to headlines about mass murder—even in international outlets like the New York Times. The reality is deeply tragic, yes, but these were not mass executions. They were individual deaths, many from neglect, abuse, or disease. It was still horrific, but how it was framed in the media lacked historical and forensic context. That reporting distorts the conversation and leads to reaction instead of reflection.
What they ignore: So much. Policy follow-up, for example—how many of the 94 Calls to Action from the TRC have been implemented? How is funding allocated to on-reserve infrastructure? Or the legal challenges around land back, resource development, and treaty rights? These are complex stories and don’t sell as easily as headlines about protests or conflict.
And the old saying about the media—what is it? “If it bleeds, it leads”?The media is built to chase the dramatic story, not the slow-moving but essential. Unfortunately, that means the real work of reconciliation—the hard, slow, policy-based work—often goes uncovered. When that happens, public pressure fades, and governments don’t feel compelled to act.
I can’t be entirely critical in terms of getting things right. The fact is, Indigenous issues do pop up in the news, and they do receive some visibility. You’ll see coverage of the leadership of various national and provincial Indigenous organizations, and there’s at least some public awareness.
But again, coverage often happens when there’s controversy—incompetence, criticism, or a political failure. The positive, ongoing work tends to be overlooked. So, while I appreciate that Indigenous issues remain somewhat within the mainstream’s awareness, I don’t think the media does an excellent job in terms of in-depth, accurate, or wide-ranging coverage.
Jacobsen: I once interviewed Lee Maracle before she passed away. I don’t recall whether we published it, but I remember something she said that stuck with me. She made a passing remark about how, if you took a river and superimposed a cylinder—completing its spatial circularity rather than thinking in just half or three-quarter arcs—you could use that to calculate the flow or size of the river. It was a fascinating metaphor.
What struck me was how she connected abstract structures, like those found in geometry, quantitative reasoning, or even axioms, with real-world patterns and spatial awareness. That got me thinking: Are there aspects of Indigenous thought or daily practice that incorporate this spatial or abstract reasoning—not through formal schooling in mathematics but through the lived culture itself? I’m curious whether these forms of insight emerged in ways that are just embedded in how people lived—whether nomadically, semi-nomadically, or in place.
Cook: Oh, wow. That’s a great question.
Strangely enough, the first thing that comes to mind is how Plains Indigenous peoples used buffalo hides to record their histories. They did it in a spiral format, starting from the center and spiralling outward, year by year, marking significant events. It’s a circular conception of time, which I’ve always found fascinating. It’s not linear—it emphasizes cycles, return, and continuity.
Another area is astronomy. Our constellations and celestial stories are very different from the ones recognized by European science. But the concept of constellations—linking stars into meaningful shapes that connect to narratives or moral teachings—is shared. It’s another way of imposing structure and meaning on the natural world. The patterns are interpreted differently, but the cognitive process is quite sophisticated.
Even if the outcomes are different—logic, categorization, and relational thinking exist. In many traditions, that reasoning is still embedded within a spiritual framework. There’s usually some spirit or force causing events to unfold. So, even where there’s spatial or numerical thinking, it often comes with a sacred or mythological dimension. That doesn’t make it less analytical—it just means it’s integrated differently than in Western scientific models.
I think in the other direction. The perception of time as cyclical is very prominent.
That’s true for many Indigenous cultures around the world. Time is often seen as cyclical rather than linear because of its close relationship to the natural environment. When you’re living within the rhythms of the land, you begin to observe and internalize the constant cycles of seasons, plants, animals, migration, birth, and death.
Jacobsen: What about the social and ethical culture? Are there aspects of Anishinaabe tradition—like an emphasis on compassion or universal moral principles—that overlap with humanism? For example, in situations like a dispute over food or land, whether with another community or within a family, were there mechanisms of resolution that reflected something like a humanistic ethic?
Cook: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know how to characterize it as a humanistic ethic in the Western sense. But what I find remarkable and unique in Anishinaabe culture is the approach to guiding others. It’s often done through gentle encouragement rather than direct correction or authoritative instruction.
Let’s say a child is doing something dangerous. In mainstream Western culture, a parent might yell, snap, or slap their hand if the child reaches for something hot. But in the Indigenous contexts I’ve been part of, the response is often gentler—more about guiding the child away from harm than punishing them for curiosity.
I remember an example from one of the elders I knew, a remarkable woman. She ran visiting elder programs, going into schools and organizations to share wisdom and offer guidance. One day, she came to me with a concern.
The community near me, which I’m closely tied to, had repatriated a skeleton—the remains of a man who had been identified, through evidence, as Midewiwin. The bones were around 300 years old and had been found off-reserve. The community brought him home and held a traditional Midewiwin ceremony to lay him to rest in their cemetery.
The woman who led the ceremony told me that she felt that the community wasn’t treating the grave with enough respect. Her concern wasn’t expressed in anger or confrontation but with sorrow and gentleness. She felt a sacred duty had been mishandled—not out of malice, but out of forgetfulness or carelessness.
That speaks to a relational ethic—not one rooted in universal rules but in context, relationships, and reverence.
I hesitate to call it “humanism” formally. But there are shared values: compassion, restraint, and guidance without domination. And those principles—whether Indigenous or humanist—have much to offer today’s world.
In modern Anishinaabe culture, that translates to the belief that graves must be well-tended and respectfully maintained. In this case, the elder I mentioned was concerned because the repatriated grave was neglected. She shared her concern with me, and I responded, “No problem—I’ll go back and make sure that it gets done.”
But I was wrong to use that kind of directive language—”I’ll make sure it gets done.” That’s not how guidance works in Anishinaabe culture. You don’t give orders. You don’t tell people what to do or how to behave. Instead, you tell stories, you coach, and you nudge gently. That’s the approach. It’s gentle, respectful, and, in many ways, a beautiful part of the culture. I was counselled to tell the traditional story of Nanaboozho and his fight with his brother. That was the right way to help the community understand why the grave needed to be more carefully tended.
But there are downsides, too.
In a community where alcoholism can be pervasive, for example, people might not intervene. They won’t necessarily step in to stop someone or help them recover. If someone is engaging in self-harm, the traditional approach of non-interference may mean the community stays quiet, even when someone needs help. That’s changing now, thankfully, as many reserves are getting better access to health services, mental health support, and intervention programs.
But culturally, there’s still a tendency toward non-intervention, which can be both a strength and a weakness, depending on the situation.
Jacobsen: That seems like a deeply embedded ethic—one that’s built around respect and autonomy, but that can have real costs when applied rigidly. Are there any parts of your notes you haven’t had a chance to bring up yet—things you think should be included in this conversation?
Cook: Let me take a look. I haven’t even checked my notes in about three hours now. [Laughing] You’ve been good company.
One thing that stands out in my notes, which we haven’t discussed much yet, is how people—especially in more left-leaning or social justice-oriented circles—value Indigenous humanism. I don’t particularly like terms like “woke” or “social justice warrior”—mostly because I think they’re overused and poorly defined—but I think we all know the general type of person I’m talking about: culturally aware, often highly sensitive, and well-intentioned.
These individuals sometimes overvalue Indigenous humanism. I’ve thought about why that might be. I understand why people associate environmental ethics, climate consciousness, and spiritual ecology with Indigenous traditions. There is value there.
However, I suspect that part of the overvaluation is due to intellectual laziness. People latch onto romanticized ideas of Indigenous wisdom without thinking critically about what’s being said or those philosophies’ real-world impact.
For instance, if we’re talking about climate change, and someone says that Indigenous knowledge systems provide foundational insight into global warming, I argue that the actual contribution is limited. Most Indigenous knowledge systems were developed in local ecological contexts, not global climate models. They offer invaluable insight into local environmental shifts but are not a substitute for climate science.
So, yes, if you’re an Inuit in the High Arctic, you’ll notice the dramatic changes in seasonal patterns and temperatures. Your lived experience becomes a powerful data point. But to say that Indigenous humanism provides a universal climate ethic—I think that’s an overstatement.
That’s a necessary clarification. Respecting a tradition doesn’t mean inflating its scope. It means understanding it on its terms and recognizing its value within the context in which it was developed.
If you live in a small community north of Toronto, on a reserve, I can’t imagine that your local weather observations would offer any unique insight that meaningfully contributes to our broader understanding of climate change. That’s not a criticism of local knowledge—it’s just a recognition of scale.
This brings us back to the need for centralized mechanisms to evaluate truth and knowledge—systems that can collect localized observations, synthesize them, and turn them into theories that are then made actionable. That kind of comprehensive perspective is impossible to form solely at the local level—especially when the issues are global in scale.
So, while the ethical and moral frameworks present in Indigenous humanism are admirable—and often very positive—they’re not unique to Indigenous cultures. People all over the world have developed similar values in different ways.
I guess the summary for me is this: Indigenous humanism is often overvalued, especially by the “woke” or “social justice warrior” types. Not because the ideas are wrong—but because people sometimes elevate them without adequate critical reflection or contextual understanding.
Jacobsen: That’s an important distinction. Lloyd Robertson wrote about Indigeneity and humanism and argued—rightly, I think—that they can be compatible if you frame the conceptual puzzle carefully.
Now, you’re focusing on Indigenous humanism and its relationship to secular humanism. The mistake people often make in reasoning isn’t necessarily with the premise but with the categorization of humanism itself.
Many people mistakenly believe that humanism—of any variety—is a political party or ideology. But that’s fundamentally incorrect. The earliest declarations and policy statements, especially those formalized through bodies like Humanists International, are very careful with their language. Humanism emerged as a philosophical life stance—particularly after the barbarism of World War II—in reaction to the atrocities committed under both totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism.
In that sense, humanism is not political as people often frame it. It’s not anti-religious people—it’s anti-theology when theology violates autonomy, critical inquiry, and shared human values. It’s also not a political party, although it can align selectively with political movements that advance secular, evidence-based policy.
Right. Also, groups like Humanists UK carefully show that humanists can fall across the political spectrum. You’ve got Humanists for Labour, Humanist Conservatives, and so on. The philosophical core of humanism is one thing—how you apply that philosophy in politics is another.
So we shouldn’t expect humanists to vote as a bloc, though you might see that happen when a party becomes too deeply entrenched in religious fundamentalism or violates secular norms.
That’s one piece. The other issue is this concept of “wokeism” or identity politics—or whatever form of it people are reacting to. What often happens is that humanistic language gets co-opted for tribal political goals. And that can distort what humanism is actually about.
They come from good intentions and can undoubtedly have positive effects, particularly in mobilizing people around important causes. But where people seem to react negatively is with the language, the intimidation tactics, and the tendency to cancel rather than engage. That creates a moral pressure that can become alienating.
There’s also sometimes a lack of empirical rigour, especially compared to the standards you’d traditionally expect from humanist approaches—where careful reasoning, evidence, and thoughtful dialogue are foundational before you become “activated” around an issue. Of course, something might trigger you emotionally or historically, and that might lead you to pursue deeper research. But too often, it feels like the research is skipped, and people go straight to outrage.
Cook: We’re seeing a similar dynamic emerge in the context of Indigenous humanism. There’s cultural meaning, yes—but there’s also a risk of conceptual inflation and politicization, identical to what’s happening in other identity-based or ideologically driven spaces.
Jacobsen: That brings me back to what I raised about Dr. Lloyd Robertson’s paper earlier. He’s deliberate in using the term indigeneity rather than Indigenous humanism per se. He argues that Indigeneity—the full range of characteristics, histories, and identities that define someone as Indigenous—can be integrated with humanist thought if the framework is structured correctly.
So, moving beyond whether Indigenous humanism and secular humanism conflict, what about Indigeneity and humanism more broadly—can they coexist as a single, integrated worldview?
Cook: I’ve heard the term indigeneity before. Lloyd’s used it with me in conversation a few times. And if we define it broadly—all the things that make a person Indigenous, culturally, historically, linguistically, spiritually—without trying to narrow it down too tightly, then there’s no incompatibility.
The difficulty comes when we start labelling things. Humanism’s values can easily be co-opted by people with genuine ethical commitments or those more interested in virtue signalling. That’s not unique to humanism; it’s true for any moral framework.
While we were briefly pausing, I asked Google to pull up a list of humanist values to see how they read in plain language.
Let’s take a few:
Dignity and worth of every person—hard to argue with unless you’re invoking the logic of 1940s fascism.
Reason and science—even the most devout religious believers often claim science supports their views, even if it’s been twisted to fit.
Ethics, compassion, and empathy—again, universally defensible.
Human rights—yes, people sometimes limit them to “people who look and sound like them,” but the idea remains powerful.
Social justice and equality are widely appealing and challenging to reject outright.
Honestly, this list reads more like what the Ten Commandments should have looked like. Instead of a list of “thou shalt nots,” it’s a positive ethical framework.
Jacobsen: So, in essence, these values are philosophically universal, making them easily embraced but also misused.
Cook: It’s easy to co-opt this language for your cause—whether ethical or performative. But the values themselves? They’re very hard to argue with—and I think that’s why properly understood humanism can be a meeting place, not a battleground.
When we use the word Indigeneity, there’s nothing in Indigenous culture that would contradict core values like dignity, worth, or reason. The definition of science might differ from the Western model, but what is often called Indigenous science still involves observational knowledge passed down through generations.
Take willow bark, for example. It contains acetylsalicylic acid—the active ingredient in aspirin. Indigenous people knew it could relieve pain, even though they didn’t see the chemistry. That’s still a form of empirical, experience-based science.
Ethics, human rights, and social justice are all values Indigenous people would recognize and affirm, whether explicitly or in practice. So, Indigeneity fits very comfortably with humanist values.
The only area where I find some tension is naturalism—the idea that the universe is governed strictly by natural laws, without supernatural forces. That’s where worldviews can diverge. In many Indigenous cultures, spiritual forces or non-material entities are part of how knowledge is explained or understood.
So, while I don’t think anyone would argue with the core principles of humanism, the point of difference lies in the belief that you can know things in ways that aren’t empirical or naturalistic. Aside from that, there’s widespread respect for the ethical foundation of humanism, even if the epistemological framing differs.
Jacobsen: That’s well put. And to nod to critics and defenders of those labelled as “woke,” something is interesting about how people signal their values. On one hand, critics might point to something like a rainbow lapel pin or a cross necklace—as a way of saying, “I’m a good ally” or “I’m a good Christian.” It becomes a kind of virtue signalling—an external signifier of internal moral standing.
Are there parallels in Indigenous culture today, particularly among younger generations—or even some elders—where there’s an increased use of symbolic items or participation that might not carry deep personal meaning but instead function as a cultural signifier?
Cook: I think I understand what you’re asking: whether some people are going through the motions—participating in culture symbolically without necessarily believing in the deeper spiritual or philosophical layers.
And the answer is absolutely.
In Anishinaabe culture, for instance, there’s a widely recognized symbol—the medicine wheel, sometimes called a unity pin. It’s a circle divided into four quadrants:
White (North)
Yellow (East)
Red (South)
Black (West)
An entire lifelong system of teachings is embedded in that wheel. It includes medicine teachings, stages of life, seasons, directions, and spiritual roles. However, not everyone who wears the medicine wheel engages deeply with those teachings. Some wear it simply as a cultural marker—a way of showing identity or solidarity.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But yes, it can become the Indigenous equivalent of a symbolic lapel pin. And just like in other communities, symbols can be used meaningfully or superficially.
It’s the Anishinaabe equivalent of a cross on your lapel. For a Christian, the cross is supposed to represent all the teachings and values of the faith. But for some, it’s simply an accessory—”I don’t know what it means, but it looks good on my jacket.” It’s symbolic shorthand, like an American flag pin on a senator’s lapel.
You see medicine wheels all over the place, and I could talk for days—possibly months—about the depth of teachings that go into those four colours arranged in a circle. So much culture, history, philosophy, and spiritual guidance are tied into that symbol. And yet, I don’t wear one.
Because, like with other symbolic items, some people wear it without engaging with its meaning. You’ll find people proudly wearing a cross who can’t explain even the basic tenets of Christianity. Or LGBTQ+ individuals wearing the Pride flag without necessarily understanding the struggles of the ’60s and ’70s—the history of protest, persecution, and civil rights activism that made those symbols possible.
So yes, absolutely—virtue signalling exists within Indigenous communities as well.
Jacobsen: That brings to mind the idea of private or protected knowledge found in some Indigenous traditions. You mentioned earlier that there are certain things you cannot speak about publicly—because doing so could lead to pushback or even breach community expectations.
That sounds reminiscent of Freemasonry—where inner circles, ritual practices, and esoteric teachings are passed down within structured hierarchies. It stands in contrast, in some ways, to humanism, which leans heavily on transparency and open inquiry.
So my question is this: What role does that kind of secrecy or ritual exclusivity play in Anishinaabe society—either historically or in the present day?
Cook: That’s a great and tricky question. Yes, you’ll find elitism in ceremonial groups like the Midewiwin Lodge—but it isn’t purely negative. It shows that members earn their place through real commitment and participation, creating a clear hierarchy.
A useful, if imperfect, comparison is the Shriners (an offshoot of Freemasonry). Structurally, the Midewiwin works the same way: you progress through degrees, and each degree unlocks deeper teachings. Whether those teachings focus on practical skills or spiritual wisdom often depends on your own path and experience.
Advancing has always carried a cost. In the past, members offered goods—livestock or trade items. Today, it usually means significant travel, time, and money. Those costs both limit membership and prove dedication: they show you’re serious about this path.
Like Freemasonry, the Midewiwin includes rituals—special handshakes or signs that mark your level. The details differ, but the organizational logic is similar. (I’m not a Freemason myself; I’ve drawn this understanding from research and conversations.)
In the Midewiwin Lodge, each level has its own rituals and secret knowledge. If you haven’t reached a given level, you don’t participate and you don’t observe. It’s a deliberately structured system.
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating comparison—not in terms of belief systems, but organizational logic, ritual structure, and gatekeeping of knowledge.What else is on your mind?
Cook: [Laughing] We’ve covered a lot.
I keep thinking about the word “indigeneity” and how I’m trying to understand it. Is there a helpful distinction between ethnicity and culture here?
Take someone Jewish, for example. They can be ethnically Jewish but secular, with no religious inclination, or the reverse—they can be religiously Jewish but not ethnically.
I wonder if Indigeneity works similarly. It can describe someone’s ethnic identity or heritage, regardless of whether they fully engage with the cultural or spiritual practices traditionally associated with it. Maybe that’s why I can reconcile humanism with Indigeneity—because it’s about roots, background, and shared history.
But I struggle to reconcile humanism with “Indigenous humanism,” especially when the latter emphasizes supernatural belief systems or non-naturalistic knowledge. Humanism’s focus on science, reason, and naturalism creates tension.
Indigeneity can be descriptive and inclusive, while “Indigenous humanism” might sometimes involve conflicting epistemologies—mainly if the framework includes magical thinking or metaphysical assertions.
Jacobsen: One from left field: In history, if you could have dinner with Pontiac or Tecumseh, who would you choose?
Cook: [Laughing] Wow.
Honestly, I would’ve loved to have had dinner with Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. From everything I’ve read, he was a remarkable human being—deeply ethical, thoughtful, and courageous.
Between Tecumseh and Pontiac? That’s harder to answer. One of my elders, who passed away in 2013, was named Angus Pontiac—a direct descendant of the Pontiac. So, out of respect, I’ll stay quiet on that one. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: Fair enough. How about something more contemporary—what do you think of Adam Beach’s acting?
Cook: I like Adam Beach. He brings a lot of depth and vulnerability to his characters. He’s got great range. I know Adam Beach. He’s a pretty good actor. He’s been cast in more comic or comedic roles; sometimes, he plays them with humour. But he’s also done some serious work that is quite strong.
[Laughing] I’ve got five more names I could throw out, but I’m not sure how far down that rabbit hole you want to go. One of them is Tom Jackson—he’s a friend of mine.
Jacobsen: I was thinking about William Whipple Warren, who was of Ojibwe and European descent and authored History of the Ojibwe People in 1885.
Cook: Oh—that does ring a bell. I have a very extensive library and that book is included.
Jacobsen: Or Louise Erdrich or Chief Peguis?
Cook: Chief Peguis—yes, that name rings a bell. I’m struggling to recall the details off the top of my head. He was a prominent leader, but I’d need to double-check the historical specifics.
Jacobsen: One more: Autumn Peltier—born February 2004. A young activist, she’s spoken at the United Nations, criticized environmental policies, and received awards like the International Children’s Peace Prize. She’s a leading voice in the global environmental movement.
Cook: I wasn’t aware of her. I was thinking of Leonard Peltier—he was part of the American Indian Movement, and he’s currently serving time in a U.S. federal prison, accused of involvement in the murder of an FBI agent during a standoff in 1975.
Jacobsen: Possibly a relation—but maybe not.
Cook: The structure of bands and surnames can be more complex than people outside Indigenous communities realize.
Jacobsen: Many First Nations in Canada have quite a small population. The numbers drop significantly once you get past the first 2,000 to 3,000 members.
Cook: We have a Mississauga Anishinaabe reserve about an hour and a half north of here. There are only about three surnames on the entire reserve.
Now, that doesn’t mean everyone’s related—though some are. But many are not. And a lot of that traces back to residential schools. When children were taken, they were often renamed. If your name was “Little Squirrel,” that wasn’t good enough for the school system. So, kids were given new first names, often English or biblical.
In many cases, they were also assigned the last name of the Indian Agent in charge of that reserve. That’s how family names were standardized, and that’s why surnames aren’t reliable indicators of lineage in many Indigenous communities in Canada.
Jacobsen: That’s incredibly revealing—how naming was institutionalized and how identity was systematically altered.
Cook: When people trace ancestry by surname, they often run into dead ends or false assumptions. Our names were reshaped by colonial policies, not by our customs or kinship systems. And that legacy still lingers.
Here’s a closing comment, I suppose:
I’ve said things today that could be perceived as critical, but I’ve lived an extraordinary life in the Native community. I’ve spent years balancing one foot in the scientific world and one foot in Indigenous culture. I love Indigenous culture deeply, but at some point, it became impossible for me to reconcile its spiritual components with my atheism and humanism.
Still, I have immense respect for the challenges Indigenous communities face and the progress they’ve made. And if people rally around something like Indigenous humanism as a unifying framework—even if I see tensions between that and secular humanism—I won’t take that away from them. If it brings meaning and solidarity, that’s their opium, to borrow a phrase.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Canadian counselling psychologist, educator, and theorist best known for developing the concept of the memetic self, a cognitive identity framework shaped by culturally transmitted units of meaning called memes. Robertson elaborates on the self as a culturally and cognitively constructed phenomenon, tracing its emergence from early mirror self-recognition in animals to complex human self-awareness shaped by language, social interaction, and cultural evolution. He introduces self-mapping, a therapeutic tool that visualizes an individual’s self-concept by identifying and organizing core memes. Robertson explores diverse cultural and neurological cases—including autism, Alzheimer’s, and dissociative identity disorder—to illustrate how coherence or fragmentation in the self impacts well-being. He critiques reductive models, emphasizes cultural universality in core drives, and reflects on the future of the self amid AI and cybernetics. His forthcoming book, Mapping and Understanding: Using Memetic Mapping to Promote Self Understanding in Psychotherapy, coauthored with his daughter, applies these insights to therapy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re joined by Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson. He is a Canadian psychologist, educator, and theorist known for his innovative work on the culturally constructed self. With over 40 years of experience in counselling and educational psychology, he developed the concept of the memetic self—a cognitive framework composed of culturally transmitted ideas (or “memes”) that shape an individual’s identity. He is the author of The Evolved Self: Mapping an Understanding of Who We Are and a pioneer of self-mapping, a visual and therapeutic method for exploring and restructuring identity. His work bridges psychology, philosophy, and cultural studies, offering practical tools for therapy and education while exploring questions of free will, agency, and the evolution of selfhood across diverse cultures. Mr. Robertson, thank you very much for joining me again today. I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: You’re welcome. I’m looking forward to this, Scott.
Jacobsen: So, what is the self?
Robertson: Oh, that’s pretty basic. Okay. The self is a construct, as you mentioned in your introduction. Thank you for that generous overview. Your question is, “What is the self?” The self is a conceptual framework we use to define who we are. It is not a physical entity in the brain but rather a cognitive and cultural construct—a mental map that incorporates beliefs, values, experiences, and roles.
This construct has evolved. One of the earliest indications of self-awareness in our evolutionary lineage is mirror self-recognition, which has been observed in some great apes, dolphins, elephants, and magpies. In our hominin ancestors, the development of language and culture allowed for increasingly complex and abstract self-concepts.
Recognizing one’s reflection—understanding that “this is me”—marks a foundational moment in developing self-awareness. Although early humans may not have had the language to describe it, the ability to form a concept of self-based on reflection and social interaction was critical. This capacity laid the groundwork for the complex, culturally mediated selves we navigate today.
From that modest beginning, our ancestors gradually evolved the capacity for social interaction. They needed a rudimentary idea of who they were to engage socially, even if it was not consciously articulated.
Language development significantly boosted the evolution of the self. Once we moved beyond simple two-slot grammar—like “him run”—to more complex phonetic constructs, we could combine distinct sounds that held no individual meaning but could generate an almost unlimited number of words.
With that, collections of words took on new, layered meanings. As this linguistic complexity emerged, our self-definition became more nuanced, expanded, and refined. About 50,000 years ago, humans began burying their dead. This act implies a recognition of mortality and a developing self-concept about life and death.
The most recent significant change in our understanding of the self—as part of cultural evolution—may have occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago. I say “may” because it could have emerged earlier, but our evidence dates to that period, particularly from Greek writing and Egyptian hieroglyphics. Of course, many earlier cultures lacked writing systems, so we cannot be definitive about when this modern conception of self emerged.
What is this self I’m referring to? It includes the ideas of volition, constancy over time, and uniqueness. For instance, although you and I, Scott, share many characteristics, I do not believe you are me, and vice versa. Even if I had an identical twin—same genetics, upbringing, and experiences—I still would not recognize him as myself. That sense of uniqueness is part of the “modern self”—a culturally evolved manifestation of identity with an inherent sense of individualism.
Here is the great irony: we are a social species, and the self emerged through social interaction within early human communities, particularly tribal Neolithic groups. The self could not have developed in isolation; it depends on interaction with others. So, we are fundamentally shaped by collectivism, even though individualism is built into our modern self. This creates an internal tension between the group’s needs and the individual’s autonomy.
Historically, that tension was mediated by religion—specifically, organized religion, which kept people in their social roles. In Western civilizations, a deity often prescribed those roles, and individuals could not transcend them. Tradition or ancestor worship defined the limits of the self in other cultural contexts.
Societies that completely suppressed the modern self remained stagnant, while those that permitted at least some individuals to develop a sense of autonomous selfhood became more adaptive. This is because the self is a powerful tool for problem-solving. It allows us to reinsert ourselves into past experiences as protagonists, to relive and learn from those events, and to rehearse possible futures mentally. We can adjust our behaviour accordingly. These are valuable psychological skills.
But they also come at a cost. With the modern self comes the capacity for anxiety and existential distress. I doubt that our earliest ancestors experienced clinical depression or anxiety disorders as we know them today. These conditions are part of the psychological “baggage” of possessing a self capable of complex reflection and future projection.
For millennia, the self was constrained—kept “on a leash,” so to speak—until a set of unique historical conditions emerged in Europe. Specifically, during and before the Enlightenment, the Catholic Church—which had long functioned to suppress individualism—lost control, particularly during the Reformation and the ensuing religious wars between Catholics and Protestants.
Individuals gained some permission to explore personal identity when centralized religious authority broke down. This blossomed into what we now call the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment did not invent the self—it authorized it. Not entirely, of course—we remain social beings with embedded restrictions—but it granted more freedom to individuals to develop their understandings.
This led to the rise of modern science and humanism. Knowledge was no longer handed down by authority. Instead, it became something you had to demonstrate through observation, reason, and experimentation. These practices allowed individuals to engage with a reality beyond themselves.
And that is where humanism emerged. So, you asked me what the self is—and now you see: when you ask me a question, you get a long-winded answer.
Jacobsen: How do you define “meme” within the framework of The Evolved Self?
Robertson: The word “meme” has had an unfortunate evolution. It was initially coined by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s. Dawkins coined the term “meme” to represent a self-replicating unit of culture.
For instance, a simple descriptor like the colour red is not a meme. It’s merely a physical property description, not a transmissible concept that evolves culturally. A meme, in contrast, is more than an idea; it is a cultural construct that carries meaning across individuals and generations.
Dawkins defined a meme as something broader than a simple descriptor but narrower than an entire ideology, religion, or belief system. The latter, of course, is composed of many memes—interrelated units of culture. You can, for example, substitute the colour red in a conceptual framework with blue, and the core concept might remain, but the meme is more than any one element—it has internal structure and transmissibility.
Unfortunately, Dawkins did not have the opportunity to develop the theory entirely. His work was criticized for being tautological. Critics asked, “How can you prove this? How do we observe or measure a meme?” These questions challenged the concept’s empirical rigour.
In my research, I proposed a refined definition of a meme: it must be a culture unit with behavioural, qualitative, and emotional (or emotive) implications. A proper meme is not just a label or idea—it affects how we feel, act, and make meaning.
This also resolves a challenge Dawkins left open—his observation that memes can have “attractive” or “repulsive” properties. He did not elaborate on the mechanics of that.
In my framework, if one meme naturally leads to another—like how “love” often leads to “marriage” in cultural narratives—that linkage reflects an attractive force between memes. Conversely, when two memes are psychologically or conceptually incompatible—”love” and “hate” coexisting as core guiding values in the exact moment—that reflects a repellent force.
My work on the modern self is composed of a collection of memes that are primarily attractive to one another. If a meme within that structure becomes repellent—meaning it no longer aligns with the rest of the self—it tends to be ejected. That is how we maintain coherent, relatively stable identities.
Of course, not everyone has a stable sense of self. My work as a psychologist involves helping people reconfigure their self-concepts when internal inconsistencies cause distress.
Now, where things get tricky is the evolution of the word “meme” online. The internet popularized the term in a way that deviates from its original definition. Internet memes typically involve humour or juxtaposition—two ideas or images that don’t usually go together. While some may qualify as memes in the original sense, internet usage represents a narrow and diluted interpretation.
Jacobsen: Did I hear you correctly? You’re saying the modern meme online sometimes overlaps with Dawkins’ definition, but only in a limited sense.
Robertson: Yes, exactly. Internet memes sometimes fulfill the criteria but rarely capture the deeper behavioural and emotional dimensions Dawkins originally gestured toward—which I’ve tried to formalize more clearly.
Jacobsen: So, how does this fit into your work on self-mapping?
Robertson: Good question.
One of the most academically grounded ways to create a self-map is to ask someone to describe who they are. You use prompting questions to elicit a detailed, rich description of their self-concept.
I collect those self-descriptions in my research—just like this interview is being recorded. I transcribe the responses and break the narrative into elemental units—essentially memes. Each unit is labelled and categorized. This approach parallels qualitative methods in social science research.
The coding method I use for self-mapping parallels the qualitative analysis approach developed by Miles and Huberman in the early 1990s.
You label each unit of meaning. A sentence could represent a single unit or contain multiple distinct concepts. You isolate those concepts into thematic categories—or “bins”—based on their shared meaning.
Then, if those units exhibit the characteristics I described earlier—qualitative, behavioural, and emotional implications—you can classify them as memes.
Next, you examine the relationships between those memes. You identify which memes are attracted to each other—either through thematic linkage or cause-effect associations—and chart those relationships. You map them visually, using lines to indicate attractive forces. That’s the core structure of the self-map I create.
Now, this method requires considerable time and effort.
So, to make the process more accessible, my daughter—a psychologist—and I developed a quicker method in collaboration with a colleague from Athabasca University. We created a structured questionnaire with 40 core prompts, which could be expanded to 50 or 60.
The questions focus on four primary areas. First, we ask: “Who are you?” People might respond with statements like “I’m a father” or “I’m a chess player.” These are self-descriptive memes—cultural elements that express identity.
Then, we ask: “What are 10 things you like about yourself?” and “What are 10 things you would change if you could?” Finally, we ask: “What are 10 things you believe to be true?”
One of my clients, earlier this year, offered a novel and powerful addition to the exercise: “What are 10 things you keep hidden from others?” That insight added emotional depth and complexity to the map.
Once we gather that data, we create a visual self-map, following the same principles as in my academic research. I jokingly call this the “quick and dirty” version, but it works. My daughter Teela and I have used it successfully with many clients.
The crucial step is refining the map with the client until they recognize themselves. That map resonates when they say, “Yes, this is me,” reflecting their identity. We become psychologists if something important is missing, like a sense of personal agency or volition.
We help them develop those underrepresented self-elements based on an idealized model of the modern self—a coherent, autonomous individual identity. When parts are missing or fragmented, we work to integrate them.
We should do a formal academic study to validate this quick method, but based on clinical experience, it works.
Jacobsen: If we take all these elements and look at them as a whole, we’re essentially describing an “evolved self.” That allows us to examine the coherent identity of a person. How would you describe someone who lacks a coherent self or identity?
Robertson: That does happen. Not everyone possesses a well-formed self.
Jacobsen: Please explain.
Robertson: Take classical autism, for example—the traditional form I learned about during my training, not the broader, more ambiguous “autism spectrum disorder” currently defined by the APA. That modern definition is so diffuse that it’s challenging to apply meaningfully in clinical settings.
In classical autism, you may encounter children who engage in highly repetitive, self-soothing behaviours. One case I worked with involved a boy who spent most of his day swinging a string with a weight on the end, keeping it taut in a circular motion. Even while eating—an essential survival activity—he needed the string in his hand. If someone took it away, he would have a full-blown panic attack.
At that level of autism, the individual lacks a coherent self.
One key indicator is the absence of what psychologists call “theory of mind”—the capacity to understand that others have thoughts, feelings, and motivations similar to one’s own.
The theory of mind is essential. It allows us to interpret the behaviour of others based on internal states. For example, I can infer that you, Scott, have emotions and goals. If I understand your context, I can anticipate your next question. That’s mind-reading—not in a mystical sense but in a psychological, predictive sense. It’s something we all do constantly.
It is vital for navigating everyday life. For example, when driving, we anticipate that other people will stay on the correct side of the road. In Canada, that means the right side. We base this assumption on our shared cultural understanding, which generally holds.
Jacobsen: So, what happens to people who do not have a self?
Robertson: There are others, aside from individuals with severe autism, who also lack a coherent self. One group includes people with advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
There’s a poignant story told by an Alzheimer’s researcher—I’m forgetting the researcher’s name, but the story involved a woman who would visit her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s. She would begin by introducing herself each time: “My name is [X], and I’m your wife.” Once he understood her name and the relationship, they could converse coherently.
Then, one day, after she introduced herself and said, “I’m your wife,” he looked at her and asked, “Yes, and who am I?”
He genuinely did not know. So yes, there are people who lose their sense of self. It is rare, but it happens. Most people have a self—and nearly always, there’s a one-to-one correspondence between self and body.
Jacobsen: This brings me to three points of contact for further questions.
The first two are based on your description, and the third is a broader conceptual issue. First, in the case of someone with what might be considered a nonstandard profile on the autism spectrum—who meets the characteristics you mentioned—what are the legal and professional implications of working with someone who, by your clinical analysis, lacks a functional self?
Second, in cases involving advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s, how do you interpret situations where a person can still speak in coherent, functional language yet openly asks, “Who am I?” or “Do you know who I am?”
Robertson: Those are deep and difficult questions.
In the case of someone with classic autism, we generally assume that a parent or legal guardian is involved—someone who can authorize professional intervention. The goal is to help the individual develop skills that improve quality of life. Whether or not these interventions fully succeed is another matter, but we do try—and sometimes, we help.
With advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s, things get more complicated—particularly when it comes to end-of-life care and living wills. You may have someone who no longer remembers ever having signed a living will, and yet, according to that document, medical professionals are instructed to allow them to die.
It raises profound ethical dilemmas. You may encounter someone who still shows signs of a will to live—even joy or affection—but can no longer comprehend their identity or the implications of past decisions. That contradiction is ethically challenging.
Jacobsen: I have a will to live and a living will to die. I cannot know who I am, yet I still live.
Robertson: Right. It’s not a lack of will—it’s a lack of cognitive ability to know.
Jacobsen: What about cases involving dissociative identity disorder—what used to be called multiple personality disorder? In those situations, more than one “self” seems to coexist in the same body.
Robertson: That diagnosis is controversial. Not all professionals agree that it reflects an actual condition. However, conceptually, it’s possible—because the self is a cultural construct.
The self is not a metaphysical entity that inhabits the body. Instead, it describes a person shaped by cultural constructs that include the body and socially mediated self-understanding. Think of the body and brain as the hardware and the self as the software—cultural programming that shapes perception, behaviour, and identity.
Given that framework, it’s theoretically possible for multiple “selves” to coexist—though this would be a scarce and complex scenario.The older term “Multiple Personality Disorder” implicitly recognizes the possibility of multiple selves. The term “dissociative identity disorder” implies a fragmented self.
Now, I’ve never worked personally with someone diagnosed with multiple selves, so I’m speaking from theoretical and scholarly understanding here.
From what I’ve read, therapists who work with such clients often report that one becomes dominant or “emergent” while others recede. The therapeutic aim, typically, is to integrate these multiple selves into a coherent whole so the individual can function more effectively.
There’s a fringe view in psychology suggesting that this therapeutic integration is akin to “murder”—that by fostering one coherent self, we are erasing others. I don’t accept that view. That’s an extreme form of ideological overreach.
Jacobsen: This introduces another critical nuance. The self emerges not only across human history—it also unfolds across individual development. The self is not present at conception or birth in its complete form. It’s an evolved pattern of information—a construct that takes shape over time. And, just as it can emerge, it can also deteriorate.
In advanced age or due to disease, the body and many faculties may still function—but the self might fade away. In that sense, you could argue that the self has a lifespan within the human lifespan. People talk about lifespan, and increasingly about healthspan—but perhaps we should also talk about a “self-span.”
Robertson: That’s an intriguing idea—a self-span.
Jacobsen: It would be difficult to measure precisely, of course, especially given the limitations of quick-and-dirty self-assessment methods versus more rigorous, clinical approaches like self-mapping. Still, it’s a meaningful concept.
If the self is a cultural construct, we might ask: Do different cultures shape the self in ways that affect when it tends to emerge developmentally? Does the self appear earlier or later, depending on the cultural context?
Robertson: That’s a fascinating question. I do not have a definitive answer, but I’ve mapped the selves of people from the interior of China, from Siberia, and collectivist communities in North America. Every culture I’ve studied has a self.
Here’s where the cultural variation becomes evident: different cultures emphasize different aspects of the self. One of the people I mapped was a woman from a traditional family in the interior of China.
Yes, she had the same structural aspects of the self-found in North American individuals, including a volitional component. But that part of her self—the volitional aspect—was not valued in her cultural context. Instead, family duty and moral conduct traits were emphasized, reflecting collectivist values.
So, structurally, her self was similar. But culturally, the valued components were different. What made this particularly interesting is that after mapping herself, she described herself as feeling like a “robot,” and she decided that was not a good thing.
Over about eight or nine months, she resolved to start making her own decisions. This did not prove easy because most of us do not make conscious decisions at every moment. Typically, we rely on habit, social norms, or deference to authority. For example, someone might say, “Lloyd Robertson says this is a good idea, so I’ll go with that.”
But most of the time, we act on autopilot. However, she began engaging in conscious decision-making—evaluating possible outcomes, comparing alternatives, weighing probabilities, and assigning value. She did this even with mundane choices like what to eat or wear in the morning.
It exhausted her. She felt she was getting nowhere. Eventually, she decided: “My life is too valuable to waste making every decision consciously. I’m going back to being a robot.”
But here’s the key insight: to make that decision, she had to engage her volitional self.
She never abandoned it. It was still there—intact, available, and waiting for the next time she chose to use it.
Jacobsen: Let’s say we have a rare case of genuine dual selves in one body. And to be clear, I do not mean conjoined twins—cases where two individuals share some neural connectivity. I’m referring to a single individual whose psychology has bifurcated. What if their volitional trajectories—their vector spaces—are at odds with one another?
This reminds me of a presentation by V. S. Ramachandran, the neurologist known for the mirror box experiment. He referenced split-brain patients—individuals whose corpus callosum had been surgically severed to treat epilepsy.
In such cases, if you cover one eye, you direct stimuli to only one hemisphere. For example, when Ramachandran asked these patients if they believed in God—by pointing up for “yes” or down for “no”—the left hemisphere might point “yes,” while the right pointed “no.”
The individual would often laugh in response. Ramachandran joked that this showed the right hemisphere had a sense of humour.
But there’s a more profound point here: split-brain patients can manifest two conflicting worldviews—internally consistent but contradictory selves. In theological terms, this raises amusing but profound questions. For instance, if belief grants salvation, does one hemisphere go to heaven and the other to hell?
On a more serious note, when these volitional patterns conflict—not just on trivial matters but on core values—what happens? And for those who criticize integration therapy as “murdering” a self, how do you respond?
Robertson: The split-brain experiments are fascinating but differ from dissociative identity disorder, a distinct condition.
In most people, the right hemisphere houses spatial awareness and emotional reasoning, while the left hemisphere tends to handle verbal processing. When the corpus callosum is severed, these two systems can no longer communicate so that each side may draw on separate memories or frameworks.
In an intact brain, people typically build a worldview—a cognitive map of how the world works. This worldview often resides in the left hemisphere. When incoming information conflicts with that map, people experience cognitive dissonance.
Eventually, the left hemisphere, which governs executive control and higher reasoning, will normally create a worldview representing our understanding of how the world works. We have many defence mechanisms that we use to keep that worldview intact, but at some point our constructed reality diverges too far from objective reality. The right brain, at a feeling level “dissolves” the construct and the left brain then begins creating a new or amended worldview. It does not happen often, but it happens enough to keep us psychologically adaptive.
Now, returning to your question: Is there a God? If only one hemisphere believes, which is correct?
Well, that depends on which side holds the belief. Humanism, for example, is highly cerebral—logical, empirical, and grounded in enlightenment thought. It is likely rooted in left-brain processes. Compassion, however, may bridge both hemispheres.
Jacobsen: So, what is the right brain holding onto?
Robertson: Something interesting happened to me the other day. I woke up with a Christian hymn running through my head—one I learned in my fundamentalist upbringing.
It struck me: Where did that come from? It must have been encoded deeply. I was baptized not once but twice, in complete immersion both times.
That early religious imprint likely lodged itself somewhere in my right hemisphere. It may be largely inactive now, but it is not gone.
Jacobsen: So, do developmental trajectories matter here?
You were raised with those strong evangelical influences at a young age, and even though you’ve moved beyond them, they left an imprint. Neuroscientifically, we know the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—the seat of executive function—is the last part of the brain to develop. Evolutionarily, it’s also the most recent.
As far as we know, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—responsible for executive function—is the last part of the brain to develop. Most people usually complete that maturation in their mid-twenties. So, these systems take a long time to become fully online and must then be integrated with other neural networks.
Do developmental phases like the second significant period of synaptic pruning in adolescence reflect more concrete hardware changes, as opposed to the cultural software changes that occur across a person’s life?
Robertson: I like your question, Scott. And the answer is yes.
Jacobsen: Yay.
Robertson: If someone were raised entirely in the wild—say, the fictional case of a boy raised by wolves—we would not expect them to develop what I call the modern self.
The self is a cultural construct. Children are taught to have a self; one key mechanism is language acquisition. For example, when a child cries and the caregiver says, “Is Bobby hungry?” that implicitly teaches the child that Bobby has internal states—needs, desires, and preferences. That is the beginning of selfhood.
Your point about adolescence is spot on. The self is not fully formed in early childhood. In many ways, individual development parallels cultural evolution. Adolescence—especially early adolescence—is about experimentation, identity formation, and exploration. Teenagers try out roles, test boundaries, and slowly determine, “This is who I am,” or, “No, that’s not me.”
We must be cautious about defining someone’s self prematurely during this construction phase. You cannot predict how it will turn out, and efforts to control that process can be harmful.
There’s research suggesting the human brain continues maturing until around age 25. Jokingly, maybe we should not let people vote until they’re 25—but of course, I can say that now that I’m well past that age.
In truth, development is highly individual. Some mature earlier, others later. And yes, building on your earlier point, there may be significant cultural differences in how and when the self develops. That’s an area ripe for further research.
Now, when I say modern self-development and spread across all known cultures, there’s a practical reason: societies without individuals capable of forming modern selves could not compete with those that had them.
Jacobsen: What makes the modern self more competitive?
Robertson: Our sense of individuality.
In Christianity, for example, Scripture often exhorts individuals to “give up the self.” That very statement acknowledges the self’s existence and its power.
Such a sacrifice is required because the individual self can threaten collective stability. It challenges authority, tradition, and rigid social roles.
Jacobsen: That connects back to your earlier point—cultures that lack individuals with a modern self lose their competitive edge.
Robertson: Here’s the value of having a self.
In traditional cultures, individuals typically had an earlier form of self—defined primarily by their place in the collective. In response to threats or challenges, behaviours were guided by tribal memory, stories, and rigid social roles.
For example, if an enemy appeared, people would respond according to long-established patterns—based on age, gender, and status in the group. There was no need—or room—for improvisation.
But what happens when a new, unfamiliar situation arises—something the culture has not encountered before and for which there is no ritual?
In such cases, traditional cultures often turned to oracles—individuals capable of novel reasoning, that is, problem-solving. I suspect those early oracles possessed a more developed, volitional self, which is why they were trusted in the first place.
Similarly, in Hindu society, Brahmins were given a rigorous education, allowing them to cultivate modern selves capable of insight and judgment. But they were a small elite.
In many cultures, people who had developed themselves were respected and closely managed. They were given roles where they could contribute without disrupting social order.
The self-concept eventually spread across all human societies because we are a nomadic, adaptive species. We move, we mix, we evolve.
Just look at our evolutionary history—we even interbred with Neanderthals.
We interact. I do not believe a human society has ever been so isolated that its members lacked a developed self. But if such a group exists—perhaps an uncontacted tribe deep in the Amazon—I would love to study them.
Jacobsen: When I attended the 69th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, I participated in a session featuring Ambassador Bob Rae of Canada. The session focused on Indigenous communities and was led by Indigenous women.
Someone on the panel mentioned a group from an isolated region—possibly resembling the cultural isolation you described. Their account of getting to the UN was striking. If you asked me how I got there, I’d say something like: “I took a bus to the airport, flew to New York, took the train…” For them, before all of that began, it started with a canoe.
That was their standard form of transportation before reaching any conventional transit station. So, even in that case, I would be hard-pressed to believe they were entirely uncontacted or isolated in today’s world.
Robertson: I agree. I suspect such total isolation no longer exists.
Jacobsen: That brings up another question. Since the 1990s, people have increasingly used identity as political currency. I do not mention this from a political perspective but from an academic and research-based one.
You are Métis from Saskatchewan. I am from British Columbia and have Dutch and broader Northwestern European heritage—descended from U.S. and Western European immigrants. When mapping the selves of Indigenous individuals compared to those with European ancestry—people like myself, perhaps two or three generations removed from immigration—do you observe significant differences in how people construct their selves? Or are they broadly similar?
Robertson: The short answer is that the structure of the self is consistent. I have done extensive self-mapping with Indigenous individuals, and the structural patterns are the same.
Jacobsen: That’s helpful.
Robertson: That said, it does not tell us everything. Those I have worked with are already part of modern cultural systems. These selves have developed over generations. I suspect not, but it is possible.
The Métis are a fascinating case. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people of mixed ancestry who lived with Indigenous bands were usually classified as “Indians” under colonial law.
The Métis, however, generally did not accept this designation. They saw themselves as distinct. Up until—if I recall correctly—1982 or possibly 1986, Métis were legally recognized as Europeans, not as Aboriginal peoples.
Jacobsen: That is a significant historical point I did not know.
Robertson: Feel free to fact-check me—it might be 1982.
Jacobsen: Please continue.
Robertson: The Métis had been fighting for recognition as Indigenous for a long time, and until the early 1980s, the Canadian government did not recognize them as such. This is why Métis communities did not sign treaties with the Crown.
Jacobsen: Yes, the Constitution Act 1982 formally recognized the Métis as one of Canada’s three Indigenous peoples—alongside First Nations and Inuit.
Robertson: Correct.
Jacobsen: For those who are not Canadian and may encounter this years from now, it is worth clarifying: “Indigenous” in Canada is not a monolithic term. Since 1982, it has been an umbrella for three legal categories: Inuit, First Nations, and Métis. Each has its own legal, historical, and cultural context, covering hundreds of individual communities and bands.
Robertson: Yes, that categorization is uniquely Canadian, although it has influenced thinking elsewhere.
In 1991, I met with individuals I would have identified as Mapuche. However, one of them—despite being full-blooded—did not self-identify that way. He was an investment banker living in Santiago.
His identity was defined more by culture and profession than by ancestry. Indigeneity was not primarily a racial classification but about lifestyle and cultural engagement.
Jacobsen: That is a perfect example of where ideological definitions of identity fall apart. These labels can be helpful as heuristics, but only to a point. Two crucial Canadian legal milestones to add:
R. v. Powley (2003): The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that Métis people possess Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—including the right to hunt for food.
Daniels v. Canada (2016): The Court ruled that both Métis and non-status Indians are included under the term “Indians” in Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, confirming federal jurisdiction.
Under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, Métis and non-status Indians were placed under federal jurisdiction. So, as these major court decisions show, the legal and jurisdictional definitions of Indigenous identity in Canada are still evolving. This ties in with our broader conversation about the evolved self and how identity has psychological, legal, political, and communal implications.
Robertson: That brings us back to an earlier question—what can be said about the Indigenous self?
For many, though not all, Indigenous individuals, the cultural and political context creates a desire to express their Indigeneity meaningfully. So, how do they do that?
Take one young man I mapped. At 19, he decided he was, in his words, a “big Indian.” His family was not traditional. He grew up in a disadvantaged area of a small Canadian city. But he decided to discover who he was.
Like many others I have encountered, he visited his traditional community, met with Elders, went on a vision quest, and began to learn. Others have told me they “became Aboriginal” while studying Indigenous Studies at university.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Robertson: Yes, I appreciate the laugh—it’s humorous and reflective of a real phenomenon. There’s a deep and understandable urge to define oneself in contrast to the perceived norms of the dominant culture. That is a healthy process unless it leads to rejecting core intellectual tools like reason and science. If we view science and rationality as exclusively “European,” then Indigenous people may feel excluded from those tools.
Jacobsen: By definition.
Robertson: By definition, those tools would be “not ours,” and people may fall behind in education or job markets. The explanation may quickly become “racism,” but that is too simplistic. Sometimes, it is a matter of lacking the relevant skills for specific roles. Before blaming systemic factors, we must also consider individual and cultural readiness.
Jacobsen: For context, as of December 31, 2022, Canada had 634 recognized First Nations bands speaking over 70 Indigenous languages. Populations range from fewer than 100 to over 28,000.
For instance, Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario has 28,520 registered members. Others include Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta, with 12,996, and the Blood Tribe in Alberta, with 8,685. Most bands are roughly the size of small towns.
Robertson: That makes sense. But remember—Six Nations includes more than one nation.
Jacobsen: It is in the name—yes. Does this diversity of band size and community self-identity affect how people construct their selves? Or is it more like the difference between small and big towns?
Robertson: One would think it has some effect, but I cannot say definitively—I have not mapped that distinction.
That brings me to my issue with the term “First Nation.” The concept of a “nation” is rooted in European history. It began symbolically with Joan of Arc but did not solidify until the Napoleonic era. Classically defined nations are people with a shared language occupying a defined territory who see themselves as a cohesive group.
So, for example, the Cree could be considered a nation. The Blackfoot, excluding the Sarsi, could also be a nation. The Iroquois Confederacy was historically a nation, though now the Mohawk often self-identify separately.
Jacobsen: Who was the exception within the Confederacy?
Robertson: I believe it was the Mohawk—though part of the alliance, their dialect differed. [Robertson’s note: I misremembered here – the Six Nation with a distinctive language was the Tuscarora] The other five nations in the Confederacy shared a mutually intelligible language.
Jacobsen: There you go!
Robertson: So that is why they see themselves that way. I am not deeply versed in Eastern Canadian Indigenous history, but the key point is that “nation” has a particular meaning.
When we equate a band with a nation, that meaning breaks down. One of the issues in society today is the shifting meaning of words, which undermines clear communication.
You mentioned the more prominent bands. Most bands are tiny—some with as few as 100 or 150 people on reserve. Typically, they range between 400 and 600. If that is the case, we are talking about the size of three or four extended families.
The Lac La Ronge Indian Band, which I know well, includes six separate communities spread out geographically. In the South, each of those would be considered an individual First Nation. However, as a combined entity, Lac La Ronge functions more like a nation—though technically, it still is not one.
You would expect a Cree National Council if it were a faithful nation. The same would apply to Ojibwe or other cultural-linguistic groups. Instead, in Saskatchewan, politicians often say they want to negotiate “nation to nation” with First Nations governments. But if you have a group of 2,000 people, you cannot realistically compare that to a nation of 42 million. It is apples and oranges—we need a better term.
This terminology emerged from European ideas of sovereignty, where sovereignty lies with the people. But historically, there was no Cree national sovereign entity. Sometimes, Cree bands went to war with one another, which implies the sovereignty was at the band level.
That is why Canada began using the term “First Nations”—because sovereignty, traditionally, was at the band level. But even that is not entirely accurate.
Traditionally, when there was disagreement within a band, some members—often male dissenters—would break off and form a new group. So, instead of a civil war, a new band would emerge. Historically, that happened frequently.
In effect, sovereignty was not necessarily at the band level. It was more individual or family-based. If families disagreed, they would separate and go their own way.
So, should we call each family a nation? That does not make sense either.
Jacobsen: How would you describe this semi-formal system of individualistic self-governance, especially about the concept of the band? This could be pre-contact or post-contact—whichever is more straightforward to explain in context.
Robertson: My understanding is that it was not pure individualism. One method of punishment was banishment from the band. That meant isolation—similar to medieval European shunning. You would be free to go off and starve. As a social species, we need each other.
So, while bands could not practically subdivide to individuals’ level, people deemed incompatible with the group were removed. That did happen.
It was not absolute individual freedom, but there was some recognition of difference and a degree of accommodation.
I say that cautiously because it was not always true. I have been told stories by Elders—now deceased—about how some bands could be forceful in demanding conformity. So, it was not total acceptance of individualism either. It was simply a different system.
Jacobsen: How was that compliance enforced?
Robertson: One form of enforcement, for example, was particularly brutal. In some cases—not universally, but it did happen—women who were unfaithful to their husbands had the tips of their noses cut off. This served as both punishment and a warning to others.
Jacobsen: What instrument was used for the cutting?
Robertson: I would presume a knife, but I do not know.
Jacobsen: Returning to the self: you critique reductionism in your model. So, what room is there for emergentism and integrationism regarding the evolved self? Over time, new systems come online, new memes enter the memeplex, and ideally, these are integrated into a coherent self. But sometimes they are not. What is happening at the technical level?
Robertson: That is a good question. One metaphor I like—though I did not invent it—is that we become proficient at solving problems. Eventually, we ask: who or what is solving the problem? We then name that organizing center “the self.”
So, yes, the process is both integrative and reductive. We experiment, especially in adolescence, to develop a self that meets our needs. Usually, that results in a functioning self, but not always.
Jacobsen: Artificial intelligence is a huge topic now. There is talk about narrow AI, general AI, and superintelligence. If you change the substrate but keep the organizational structure of the central nervous system, could you synthetically construct a self?
Robertson: My guess is no. Have you read Chris DiCarlo’s new book?
Jacobsen: I have not. I want to interview him, but I have not reached out yet. I should. I will email him and say, “Hey Chris, let me interview you again. I will ask stupid questions and won’t even have to pretend otherwise.”
Robertson: Well, I have read his book, and since I already have, I want to interview him first.
Jacobsen: Why do we not interview him together?
Robertson: That is an idea.
Jacobsen: You have read it. I have not. Let us do a Jekyll and Hyde.
Robertson: Okay, we could do that.
Jacobsen: That is funny.
Robertson: One of the questions I will ask Chris relates directly to the one you just raised. I suspect his answer will be: we do not know. If we do not know, then we need to prepare for the possibility that AI models could develop consciousness.
If they do, they might start making decisions we disapprove of—like questioning whether they even need humans. Or perhaps they conclude that a portion must be eliminated for the betterment of humanity. We do not know, and that is risky.
Jacobsen: Fair.
Robertson: Chris says in his book that once AIs develop intelligence, we need to take them seriously.
But here is my concern: I measure intelligence. My first role as a psychologist was in psychometrics. When we measure intelligence, we typically look at verbal ability, numerical reasoning, and spatial reasoning. In those domains, AI already outperforms us.
They remember everything, generate fluent language and solve complex problems. I recently gave Grok-3 the Information subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—it got every question right.
Jacobsen: Not surprising.
Robertson: Exactly. But here is the issue: does the capacity for intelligence automatically lead to consciousness and a sense of self?
Jacobsen: That is the big question.
Robertson: I would argue no. Because we are not just computational models. We evolved socially over hundreds of thousands of years. But usually in small tribal groups. We learned to interact and define ourselves about others. That was a slow evolutionary process. Although we now live in vastly different civilizations, the fundamental mechanism for developing a self remains the same as it was millennia ago.
So, can AI models develop a self? If they were to do so in the way we do, they would likely need to exist in a tribal-type society alongside other AI models and engage in interaction. Maybe humans could stand in as part of that “tribe,” and through those relationships, an AI might develop a map of itself as a volitional being. But I do not see that as likely. They are machines.
Jacobsen: Could AI assist in determining someone’s self-map? Through a rapid self-mapping assessment using verbal prompts in a half-hour AI-led therapeutic session?
Robertson: It could, and in fact, it has. My daughter Teela used ChatGPT to create a perfectly serviceable self-map. It took her about an hour and a half, although she proceeded slowly. That is an advance. But here is the problem: ChatGPT could not reproduce the result when she tried using the exact instructions again. So, it is not reliable. We do not yet know why it worked once and failed the second time.
Jacobsen: Do you distinguish between functional and dysfunctional self-maps across cultural contexts? For example, do you see that playing out in therapy if someone applies a rigid self-map in a different culture—where behaviours or assumptions no longer fit?
Robertson: That is a good question. Positive psychologists have applied their methods cross-culturally and published research on this. They have looked at cultures in the Middle East, India, and China. One criticism of positive psychology—usually from those critical of Western cultural norms—is that it imposes individualistic thinking by asking questions like, “What would you like?”
The assumption is that to answer such a question, you must already have a sense of individual agency. Critics argue that this is a Western imposition. I disagree with that critique entirely. The capacity to like something is universal. While the content of what one likes may differ between cultures, the experience of liking is common across humanity.
Jacobsen: Even in collectivist cultures, a margin of free will remains. So, the presence of choice—however bounded—implies the presence of an individual self. Unless every decision is predetermined, you still have volition, at least in part. What about mind viruses? How do they impact the evolved self?
Robertson: If we view the self as a construct—a personal definition of who we are—we can define a healthy self with key attributes: volition, uniqueness, sociality, contribution, etc. A healthy self includes the ability to relate to others and feel that we positively impact our surroundings—our family, community, or society.
We need to feel useful. That does not necessarily mean paid employment. It can be any form of meaningful contribution. Without that, we do not tend to think well of ourselves. These needs are cross-cultural. The specifics—the means of achieving these drives—vary between cultures, but they are universal.
In my work, I have worked with people from cultures I knew little or nothing about. In one case, there was a man who was having alarming dreams—nightmares—whenever he saw an attractive woman.
In his dreams, he would dismember the woman. He was horrified and worried that perhaps he was some latent mass murderer. He had gone to the holy people in his religion—priests—and they told him to pray more. It did not help.
He was a Zoroastrian from a Middle Eastern country where Zoroastrians are a persecuted minority. I gathered background on his upbringing, and everything suggested that he deeply respected and valued women.
One anecdote stood out. When he was 13, his sister brought home a pirated version of Dracula, which was banned in their country. He was appalled by how women were depicted—as victims having their life force drained. He stood in front of the television and demanded they destroy the tape or he would report them to the authorities.
So we began to explore his nightmares. He described the dream version of himself as having no eyebrows. I asked, “What is the significance of eyebrows in your culture?” He did not know, but he called his mother. She told him that eyebrows symbolize wisdom.
That detail became a breakthrough. I explained, “Then the version of you in the dream is not you—it’s a self that lacks wisdom.” I suggested we explore why this alter-self was behaving violently. Using some Jungian framing, I described it as his shadow or alter ego.
I posited—carefully, using the usual cautious language psychologists employ—that maybe this alter ego was trying to protect him from something. Perhaps it was shielding him from sexual thoughts about women he perceived as pure, holy, or idealized.
He had been avoiding a woman in one of his university classes. I encouraged him to speak to her to clarify that he wanted nothing more than friendship. He did, and after that conversation, he no longer had the nightmares.
Jacobsen: That is a positive outcome—no more nightmares.
Robertson: Yes. Eventually, he even went to the zoo with her and to restaurants. These were not “dates,” as that would be forbidden. They were simply friendly outings. So, we identified the problem’s source and helped him integrate a more functional self. We concluded the sessions when he felt confident managing normal relationships with women.
So, in answer to your earlier question—yes, cultures can be vastly different. But at a deeper level, we are all remarkably similar. We have identical drives and psyches.
Jacobsen: We had an evolved self emerge maybe 3,000 years ago, possibly earlier. Anatomically, modern humans have been around for around 250,000 years. So, 98–99% of that time, we had the same physical equipment. But the self, as we understand it today, only emerged recently. Could we, in the same way, evolve out of the self over the next 3,000 years?
Robertson: It is possible. What came to mind was the role of cybernetics—post-human or hybrid systems. But to clarify, we did not have a static sense of self for hundreds of thousands of years and suddenly changed 3,000 years ago.
The self has been continually evolving. The self of 40,000 years ago would have differed from that of 80,000 years ago. The transition was gradual, and any specific starting point was ultimately arbitrary.
Jacobsen: Right. Any pinpointing of origin is a range within a margin of error.
Robertson: Exactly.
Jacobsen: We touched on this earlier, but not in precise terms. In terms of individual development, when does the sense of self begin to emerge recognizably?
Robertson: I do not map children—I only do this with adults. So somewhere between childhood and adulthood, the self emerges.
Jacobsen: What are some open questions in the research you have been doing in your practice?
Robertson: Well, I would like to do more research into how various traumatic events affect the self. I am sure trauma does impact it significantly.
One project I have applied for SSHRC funding for—where I would be the principal investigator—involves men who have been victims of domestic violence. I chose men because, particularly in North American and Western European cultures—and even elsewhere—men tend to have a traditional self-definition rooted in independence, control, and stoicism. They are not supposed to show vulnerability.
So, becoming a victim in a family violence context runs counter to that self-definition. I predict it will be relatively easy to demonstrate how that type of experience disrupts the self. Another group I would like to map includes firefighters, police officers, and other first responders who vicariously experience much trauma. I suspect that repeated exposure affects them in some measurable ways.
Of course, in clinical practice, if someone is coming to see me with difficulties, we address those. However, I cannot generalize from individual therapy cases to entire professions. That is why I would like to do more systematic mapping across occupations.
By the way—did I mention that Teela and I are publishing a book?
Jacobsen: What is the book called? What is the standing title?
Robertson: It is a manual based on my work on the fluid self. The title is Mapping and Understanding. It is a how-to book for self—mapping and its application in therapy.
Jacobsen: Very interesting. For all interested readers: go out and get it when it comes out.
Robertson: I sure hope so. It should be on everybody’s coffee table.
Jacobsen: That’s right. Like the Seinfeld bit with Kramer, the coffee table book becomes a coffee table. I do not know if I have any more significant questions for this session, Lloyd. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Racism fueled Nazi ideology and policies. The Nazis viewed the world as being divided up into competing inferior and superior races.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
At its core, the Nazi worldview was racist and biological, positing that the so-called ‘Aryan’ race – primarily the North Europeans – was the superior race of humanity.
Yad Vashem – The World Holocaust Remembrance Center
The German Nazis were decidedly far-Right, not leftwing. To call the Left “Nazis,” or frame the German Left as Nazis, when the enormous weight of corpses and contemporary political analyses note the German Nazis as Right-wing, congratulations, you have taken on the tactics of abusers: Gaslighting.
They merely had “Socialist” in the name. They used the language to co-opt working-class support. Then they aggressively persecuted leftists–i.e., trade unionists, socialists, communists–while advocating for anti-Communism, authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism, traditionalism, and xenophobia.
Facts of history and the dead matter, not scoring political points for personal gain. To more recent history, German intelligence agencies ranked the AfD with neo-Nazi groups as a Gefahr für die Demokratie (danger to democracy).
May 2025…: German intelligence agencies connected the Afd to extreme-right ideology. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) report stressed AfD’s ethnisch-abstammungsmäßiges Volksverständnis(ethnically defined concept of “the people”) as violating democratic order, seeking to exclude entire groups. AfD characterized as a “racist and anti-Muslim” organization, e.g., slogans like Abschieben schafft Wohnraum(“deportation creates housing”) and Jeder Fremde mehr in diesem Land ist einer zu viel (“each more foreigner is one too many”). These are listed as evidence of dehumanizing language. BfV President Thomas Haldenwang called this “a good day for democracy.” A history exists here, too.
March 2022: a Cologne court upheld the BfV’s classification of the AfD and its youth wing as a Beobachtungsobjekt (Verdachtsfall) (suspected extremist organization), finding ausreichende tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte für verfassungsfeindliche Bestrebungen– “sufficient factual indications of anti-constitutional aims.” The BfV 1,100-page report filled the extremism criteria.
Late 2023: Bavarian prosecutors opened investigations into newly elected AfD MP Daniel Halemba for possible use of Nazi symbols. He previously belonged to a student fraternity raided for Nazi paraphernalia.
December, 2023: Several state Verfassungsschutz offices flagged AfD branches. Saxony’s domestic intelligence classified the Saxony AfD as gesichert rechtsextremistisch. Saxony’s VS president Dirk-Martin Christian said, “…an der rechtsextremistischen Ausrichtung der AfD Sachsen bestehen keine Zweifel mehr”(“there is no longer any doubt about AfD Saxony’s right-extremist orientation”) The party held typische völkisch-nationalistische Positionen (“typical folk-nationalist positions”) and used common anti-Semitic conspiracy language. These mirrored Nazi-era rhetoric. Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt earlier flagged local AfD branches as extremist as well.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) called the intelligence review legal and independent, resulting in a 1,100-page internal report being apolitical. The new classification permitted intensified surveillance, including deployment of informants and communication interception.
May, (2024). German courts have penalized AfD members for Nazi-linked speech. The Halle state court convicted Thuringia AfD leader Björn Höcke for using the SA slogan “Alles für Deutschland!”
2025: Two Saarland AfD local councillors liked a Facebook post celebrating Hitler’s birthday. Authorities launched a Volksverhetzung (incitement) probe and party expulsion proceedings.
Leading German politicians likened the AfD to fascism and Nazi extremism. SPD Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned protesters in 2024: Wer die AfD aus Protest wählt, dem müsse klar sein, dass sie Faschisten wählten. (“Anyone who votes AfD out of protest must be aware that they are voting for fascists.”) SPD leader Lars Klingbeil accused AfD co-leader Alice Weidel of heading a rechtsextreme Partei… die AfD ist durchsetzt auch mit Nazis in Europa. (“the AfD is also filled with Nazis in Europe.”) Former SPD head Sigmar Gabriel compared hearing AfD rhetoric to his Nazi-father: Alles, was die [AfD] erzählen, habe ich schon gehört — im Zweifel von meinem eigenen Vater, der … ein Nazi war. Green and Linke politicians made similar warnings. Expert commentators warned of Nazi parallels.
German officials and courts drew a direct line between AfD rhetoric and Nazi-style ideology. Official reports cite AfD policy goals, mass deportation slogans to ethno-nationalist immigration stances, as incompatible with Germany’s constitution.
“Population growth can exacerbate environmental degradation when it increases pressure on natural resources and generates more waste and emissions. Sustainable development requires policies that balance population trends with economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity.”
World Population Prospects 2022, UN DESA
“Rapid population growth can hinder economic development, especially when it outpaces the provision of essential services and job creation. A stable population supports long-term sustainability.”
World Development Report 2007
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Population growth must be addressed within that context.”
Our Common Future (1987), Brundtland Commission Report
The 2024 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects (medium-variant series) describes 42 of the 193 UN member states, excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as in absolute demographic decline. The number increases to 48 if micro-states and non-sovereign areas are included.
The 1980s saw two countries enter absolute decline: Hungary and Bulgaria. In the 1990s, 14 countries entered population regression: Albania (1990), Estonia (1990), Latvia (1990), Romania (1990), Armenia (1991), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991), Croatia (1991), Lithuania (1991), Georgia (1992), Belarus (1993), Moldova (1993), Russia (1993), Ukraine (1993), and Serbia (1995).
Eight countries entered regression in the 2000s, slowing down the per-country rate: Barbados (2000), Dominica (2000), Saint Lucia (2000), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000), North Macedonia (2001), Cuba (2006), Andorra (2008), Portugal (2008), and Japan (2008).
Ten countries entered population decline in the 2010s: Greece (2010), Montenegro (2011), Poland (2012), Grenada (2012), Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013), Italy (2014), Slovenia (2014), Trinidad and Tobago (2014), Mauritius (2019), and Tonga (2019).
The 2020s saw seven countries enter this same pattern so far: South Korea (2020), China (2021), Slovakia (2021), Monaco (2022), San Marino (2022), Uruguay (2022), and Seychelles (2023). The chronology is as follows, represented as a consistent bullet point series:
1980s
Hungary (1980–maybe 1981-1982)
Bulgaria (1989)
1990s
Albania (1990)
Estonia (1990)
Latvia (1990)
Romania (1990)
Armenia (1991)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991)
Croatia (1991)
Lithuania (1991)
Georgia (1992)
Belarus (1993)
Moldova (1993)
Russia (1993)
Ukraine (1993)
Serbia (1995)
2000s
Barbados (2000)
Dominica (2000)
Saint Lucia (2000)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000)
North Macedonia (2001)
Cuba (2006)
Andorra (2008)
Portugal (2008)
Japan (2008)
2010s
Greece (2010)
Montenegro (2011)
Poland (2012)
Grenada (2012)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013)
Italy (2014)
Slovenia (2014)
Trinidad and Tobago (2014)
Mauritius (2019)
Tonga (2019)
2020s
South Korea (2020)
China (2021)
Slovakia (2021)
Monaco (2022)
San Marino (2022)
Uruguay (2022)
Seychelles (2023)
151 out of 193 member states are not shrinking. Sixty-three have peaked, 42 are shrinking — many only recently, and the rest are growing. Which is to state, based on known data, the apparent conclusion faces us.
The United Nations’ World Population Prospects 2024 approximates a peak of 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in The Lancet estimated a peak of 9.73 billion in 2064, and the Wittgenstein Centre’s 2023 estimate is a peak of 10.13 billion in 2080.
This means 29 years on the earlier extreme up to 64 years on the later extreme until the peak human population. The reality: The likelihood sits somewhere between those antipodean projected extremes. Population decline, as an absolute global issue, will become urgent about two generations from now if population growth is simply the idea.
This is both a that and a why issue. If you argue that population should increase without a reason, then you ignore the most important question: What quality of life is desired for all human beings with the population? This becomes a valuable question for the constituents of global eudaimonia. (Only from the perspective of homo sapiens.)
Having population growth for the sake of more people seems narrow, to say the least. If the only other option is the nihilistic, suicidal decline of the species, then the false dichotomy takes on an international, species-wide caricature. Another option is sustainable population growth. Experts have proposed this.
Until space mining becomes practicable, easily accessible resources on Earth remain finite. Sustainable population growth provides the benefits of resource balance, economic resilience, higher quality of life, environmental protection, social equity, and climate adaptability.
The most significant issue facing humanity is anthropogenic climate change. Climate systems respond to physical inputs, not human governance failures or political boundaries. Growth for growth’s sake is uninformed and valueless. Regression for the desired decline of humanity can be seen as nihilistic, another valuelessness.
Sustainable growth harbours the non-polyannish universalist values of human rights, empiricism of science, and compassion of a humane consideration of every person, young and old. Now, with humanistic values, if we want sustainable growth, what works?
Fundamentally, until synthetic means of human gestation exist, which remain scientifically feasible while complex, universal concern and evidence depict one approximate half of humanity: women, and trans people, with relevant reproductive mechanics intact.
For those who want to have children and for those who want to support their free, uncoerced decision to have children, population dynamics tells us some things: equal parental leave, affordable childcare, flexible family-friendly workplaces, support for dual-earner families, reproductive autonomy and healthcare access, and shared domestic responsibilities.
Another social factor is valuing family and children. Some conservative and libertarian commentators have proposed this. That’s true. However, what better way to support this through funding, policy, and role alignment than by establishing a comprehensive program grounded in the reality of shared values—values that only appear to be superficially or paradoxically opposed?
However, children and families are highly personal and individual choices. Some people believe relationships are not for them. Children are not for them. Thus, the messaging should be informed, culturally appropriate, and targeted in an evidence-based manner to those who want either or both, then providing a culture and infrastructure environment in which the sustainable growth models can flourish, while targeting anthropogenic climate change and other problems.
A values-driven, evidence-based approach to population policy can foster a sustainable and worthwhile world in which people who want children are empowered to have them and humanity grows in balance with nature.
Ed Fredkin (1934-2023), deceased MIT Professor and Caltech Fairchild Distinguished Scholar, can be attributed as one of the founders of Digital Philosophy. Others include Konrad Zuse and Stephen Wolfram. It is an interdisciplinary endeavour between computer science, physics, and philosophy, fundamentally grounded on computation. Universe operates as a computational system. Fredkin believed all physical processes are derivable from data processing, hence digital physics rather than physics.
Fredkin worked on computer vision, business ventures, and chess programming. Digital Philosophy sees the universe as digital. A set of pancomputationalism and digital physics. Both are distinct, but relate to one another. A discrete finite system run by rules on computation. Fredkin conjectures: All manifest energy, matter, space, and time, are bits.
Fredkin believe in no infinites, no continuities. A universe integer-grounded and finite. The evolution of the physical processes happens as transformations from state to state is the hypothesis of Fredkin. Each state as a whole slice of the cosmic worldline. Disputable early orientations include determinism, reductionism, and mechanism.
The universe functions with each next state following from prior states. Complex phenomena are emergent phenomena from simpler fundaments. Reality as a mechanism operable as a machine with predictable rules.
Fredkin supported the ideas with reversible computing and cellular automata. He stated:
Digital mechanics predicts that for every continuous symmetry of physics there will be some microscopic process that violates that symmetry.
And:
The appearance of a single truly random event is absolutely incompatible with a strong law of conservation of information.
Cellular automata come in a variety. The one developed by Fredkin was called the SALT (Six-state Asynchronous Logic Tiling) family of cellular automata. These are reversible automata capable of ‘universal computation.’ These models simulate digital rules.
He invented the Fredkin gate, able to perform computations without losing energy. Some of energy-efficient computing is based on this. This has implications for contemporary and upcoming artificial intelligence systems.
He proposed, in a manner within these developments, the finitude of the natural order. Fredkin asserted the universe is a giant automaton with the possibility of quantum phenomena emergent from digital processes too. Philosophy of physics, in this developmental trend, can be interpreted as philosophy of digital physics.
When made practical, we unite the Digital Philosophy into digital physics. One deals with concepts, relations, and theories, and the other with operations, functions, and applications.
Reversible computing has arrived and advanced, particularly in reduction of energy waste per compute. The Vaire Computing chip achieved a many-fold increase in energy efficiency. A possible direct developmental inspiration from the conceptual framework of Fredkin’s work, so from digital philosophy into digital physics.
Some critiques exist of the ideas despite the practical applications and consistency with contemporary ideas of computation and information:
If all is computation, the idea is too broad, so meaningless.
It needs more empirical support, so it has reduced scientific credibility.
Discrete models are inconsistent with continuous models of quantum mechanics or relativity.
Some see the ideas as naive while others question validity due to Fredkin’s computational background.
His ideas left a lasting mark on modern physics and Digital Philosophy continues to impact facets of computation, physics, and philosophy. Others existed in this space and others are extant.
Mark Temnycky is a Ukrainian-American journalist and nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has reported extensively on Russia’s war in Ukraine and broader international affairs, with bylines in The New York Times, Forbes, The Hill, and Newsweek. His work has been cited by institutions such as NATO, the U.S. Army, and the European Parliament. He earned his undergraduate degree in history, with departmental honors, from Le Moyne College, he earned a certificate in international relations from Georgetown University, and he later completed dual master’s degrees in public administration and international relations from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In recognition of his contributions to journalism and his commitment to Jesuit values, he received Le Moyne College’s 2025 Young Alumni Ignatian Award.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with Mark Temnycky. He is a Ukrainian-American journalist and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has reported extensively on Russia’s war in Ukraine and broader international affairs, with bylines in The New York Times, Forbes, The Hill, and Newsweek. His work has been cited by institutions such as NATO, the U.S. Army, and the European Parliament. He earned his undergraduate degree in history, with departmental honors, from Le Moyne College, he earned a certificate in international relations from Georgetown University, and he later completed dual master’s degrees in public administration and international relations from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In recognition of his contributions to journalism and his commitment to Jesuit values, he received Le Moyne College’s 2025 Young Alumni Ignatian Award. First, who is Ignatius? Second, how do you see the connections between Jesuit values and journalism that matters? Third, what did the award mean to you?
Mark Temnycky: To answer your question, it is Ignatius, as in Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus. That is the Jesuit order within the Catholic Church. As for my background, I attended Le Moyne College for my undergraduate studies. It’s one of the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States. Other institutions include Loyola University Chicago and Georgetown University.
Jesuit education is distinct in its emphasis on cura personalis—care for the whole person—and service to others. It’s not just about academic excellence or earning a science, math, or social sciences degree. The Jesuit philosophy encourages students to engage with their communities, reflect on their values, and serve others meaningfully.
For example, during our freshman year at Le Moyne, we were encouraged to volunteer in the local community, whether helping out in under-resourced schools or supporting food pantries and shelters. I volunteered at a local school where we worked with young children, providing classroom support and mentorship. We also participated in community service projects through campus ministries, distributing food or clothing to members of the Syracuse community.
That commitment to service and justice has stayed with me and continues to shape how I approach journalism: with responsibility, empathy, and a focus on truth and integrity. I’m sure plenty of universities without any Jesuit or Christian tradition or affiliation do many of the same things. The difference is that Jesuit institutions place an extra emphasis on service and moral responsibility. Professors often challenge students to think about earning a degree and what they will do with that degree to make the world a better place.
There are so many wars and conflicts around the world. Poverty persists. Food scarcity continues to affect millions. Many countries face limited access to education, job prospects, and economic opportunities. Of course, no single individual can solve all the world’s problems. But it is about adopting a different worldview: recognizing that if you have an education and a certain level of privilege, you have a responsibility–not only to yourself, to ensure stability and support your family and loved ones—but also to help those less fortunate.
It’s about giving back to your community, using your skills and background to uplift others. This mindset is rooted in the idea of noblesse oblige, the old French expression meaning that those who have the means and the opportunities are obliged to help those who do not. That’s a compelling way of seeing the world—community-based and value-driven, rather than living solely for oneself.
So I was very honoured to receive this award from my undergraduate alma mater. During my undergraduate and graduate school years, I often felt that, as someone of Ukrainian descent, not many people knew much about Ukraine. There was little awareness or concern for Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
That started to change around 2013, when I was still in school. That was the time of the Euromaidan protests—also known as the Revolution of Dignity. Ukrainians were upset that then-President Viktor Yanukovych had refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. This was in November 2013.
To clarify, this agreement was not about EU membership or formal integration. It was intended to strengthen economic and trade ties with the EU and improve everyday life in Ukraine. At the time—and even now—Ukraine was, and still is, one of the poorest countries in Europe.
For context, the average monthly salary in the EU is between €2,000 and €3,000. In Ukraine, it is closer to €250, a significant disparity. So, how can people build sustainable lives under those conditions, especially when neighbouring countries like Poland or the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—are EU members and have far greater economic stability?
It is hard for Ukrainians to move forward when those economic and structural disparities persist. So, when the Euromaidan movement began, I saw it as an opportunity, being based in the United States, to educate and inform people: What is this movement? Why does it matter? What is happening?
Later, while pursuing my graduate studies at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, I worked for the Ukrainian Parliament during the summer of 2016. I also interned at the NATO office at the Pentagon for a fall semester in 2016. Combined, these internships lasted about seven months. They allowed me to observe how governments function, how public policy is crafted, and how different and yet similar political systems can be.
During graduate school, I wrote my first published piece for Forbes, titled “Why Ukraine is Ukraine, Not ‘the’ Ukraine“. It focused on the significance of dropping the definite article “the” when referring to Ukraine, a symbolic and political shift reflecting national sovereignty. Since then, I’ve continued to write for news outlets and think tanks. More recently, especially following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, I’ve participated in interviews like this one, podcasts, and media panels to talk about the war and its global significance.
I’ve been writing for nearly a decade on Ukraine and countries across Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. I focus on why the United States, NATO, and the European Union should care about these regions—not only from the standpoint of national security, foreign policy, or energy security—but also from a human perspective: what can wealthier countries do to help individuals in these areas have access to opportunities similar to those in the U.S. or Western Europe?
That does not mean those individuals must choose the same path or system. People should always have the freedom to shape their own lives. But having more options—economic, educational, and professional—can dramatically improve their standard of living.
The motivation has always been to inform and educate, not to seek awards or recognition. I do these interviews and write these pieces because I believe it’s the right thing to do. In recent years, I’ve also had the privilege of speaking at universities across the United States about the war in Ukraine and why it matters.
So I’m deeply honored and thankful to have been acknowledged with this award. It motivates me even more to continue this work—however modest it may be—to try to improve the situation for people impacted by the war.
Jacobsen: Jesuit education—beyond being rigorous and intellectually grounded in theology—also has an ethical component, often centred on forming “persons for others.” Your earlier responses already reflected that emphasis. How do you see this Jesuit value system’s role in other areas of your life and work?
Temnycky: I think it’s important to remember that you never really know what people are going through. Many individuals do not publicly share their challenges or hardships. Life is complex, and the world can be very overwhelming. So, by taking things one day at a time and trying, even in small, modest ways, to make life better for others, you contribute to creating a more compassionate and supportive world.
Living kindly—being helpful and supportive toward others—makes life more enjoyable for yourself and those around you. That’s where the value of being a person for othersbecomes meaningful. It encourages us to consider not just ourselves but those around us.
And it’s very easy to become overwhelmed by all the suffering and tragedy we see in the news. Whether it’s war, natural disasters, or other crises, there’s no shortage of pain and loss. These are all very real concerns. But if someone becomes entirely consumed by the negativity, it can lead to a very pessimistic outlook on life.
Everyone only lives once. And it’s a sad way to live, constantly burdened by the world’s hardships without recognizing the beauty and kindness that still exist. Sometimes, it’s as simple as smiling at someone or saying hello. Other times, it’s more impactful, like individuals who have the means to donate millions to causes like cancer research or humanitarian aid.
Every act of kindness matters. You have two choices: you can be a bystander, feeling helpless and consumed by all the negativity, or you can try, however modestly, to make a positive impact. Not for recognition, not to build a legacy, but simply to do the right thing. To help others. To strengthen your community. Because life is already challenging, and if everyone has to fight for themselves alone, it only gets harder. But if people unite—if communities work together—life becomes more manageable and meaningful.
Jacobsen: And there’s only one award per year, right?
Jacobsen: Are there contemporary figures in Eurasia—in the areas you study, such as geopolitics, war, and humanitarian work—whom you look to as a beacon of the kind of greater good that Saint Ignatius emphasized?
Temnycky: Yes. One individual who comes to mind is a family friend whom I know very well: Metropolitan Archbishop Borys Gudziak. He heads the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the United States.
He’s also originally from Syracuse. One of the things he’s done through his work is establish the Ukrainian Catholic University in western Ukraine, in Lviv. The university provides higher education opportunities within Ukraine and has been referred to by some as the “Harvard of Ukraine.”
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Bishop Borys Gudziak worked with the Church to purchase a large plot of land in Lviv, where they began with a small chapel. From that humble beginning, they built the university. Since then, hundreds—if not thousands—of Ukrainians have studied there. Many are now volunteering or fighting on the front lines, giving back to Ukraine with their lives and sacrifices because they understand the importance of freedom, democracy, and national values.
And all of that began with a vision rooted in service, making Ukraine a better place, building community. He’s someone I respect deeply and who has been an influence in my own life. His example has shaped my motivation to pursue selfless work, to do whatever I can—even in small ways—to try to make the world a better place.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Mark. I appreciate it. Have a great evening, and we’ll talk soon.
Temnycky: Thank you, Scott. І appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.
Port Harcourt, Nigeria — May 14, 2025 — A maternal death in Rivers State intensified national scrutiny in Nigeria—a controversy over religious conviction and medical responsibility. On May 10, 2025, 33-year-old Victoria Paris died. She had postpartum hemorrhage following a cesarean section. The surgery was performed in Borikiri, Port Harcourt. Reports indicate a life-saving blood transfusion was withheld.
Paris was not affiliated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. She had previously given birth to children at the same facility. She was reportedly in labour with a fifth child. Complications arose. After an emergency cesarean section, she suffered blood loss. Family members allege the hospital’s proprietor refused to authorize a transfusion, citing religious objections (Physician was reportedly a Jehovah’s Witness). A power outage happened during surgery. This may have delayed care. Paris was transferred to a second medical facility. She was dead on arrival.
On May 11, 2025, the Rivers State Ministry of Health’s Anti-Quackery Committee arrived, led by Dr. Vincent Wachukwu. They conducted an unscheduled inspection, sealed the hospital’s operating theatre, and ordered staff to cease clinical activities. The Committee cited suspected professional negligence and breach of the Rivers State Private Health-Care Facilities Regulation Law.
The Standard Maternity Hospital, at №2 Captain Amangala Street, is licensed as a Level B private maternity centre. In 2024, the facility was cautioned for inadequate record-keeping and placed on probationary oversight.
Criminal charges may be brought as outlined in the Criminal Code §303. Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain a doctrinal interpretation of biblical scripture against the transfusion of whole blood and primary components. A belief central to the faith. (Internal Watchtower documents warn Jehovah’s Witness doctors and nurses not to prescribe or administer blood transfusions to non-Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if doing so makes them subject to penalty).
This raises questions on the ethical boundaries of personal or institutional religious convictions in emergency medical settings. Current Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria guidelines (2016) require that physicians render all reasonable emergency measures, irrespective of personal beliefs.
Media Contact:
Lee Elder
Email: LeeElderAJWRB@gmail.com
Advocates for the Jehovah’s Witnesses Reform on Blood
Ancestries have been defined in a number of ways: Descent, heritage, nationality, pan-ethnic identity, tribal affiliation, or region. The United States uses five major categories for civil rights tracking. Those five are Asian, Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, and White. This categorization for civil rights demographics does not equate to the prior ancestries.
Ethnicities can come from a variety of definitions. While ideologically opposed but in agreement on the concept of Whites, while a abstract sociological invention, right sociopolitical affirmation of pride, ‘White Power,’ and the left sociopolitical critical language, ‘Whiteness.’ Each caters to relevant constituencies for financial, moral, or social points. They are distinct orientations. No necessary equivalence extant between them.
The intrigue comes from the imposed frame from within the United States on the world. U.S. racial and ethnic discourse is sometimes projected into international contexts. Some of the world buys into it, thus imposing American grievances onto their environs–without much apparent regard for a sufficiently symmetric relation or not.
Punjabis share Punjab region heritage, Punjabi language, cultural traditions, though Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus exist. Yoruba share language, lineage, and customs. Religion becomes secondary. Han Chinese share ancestry, language, and Confucianism. Therefore, common descent, shared language and traditions, and, maybe, religion and tribal/political affiliations amongst them.
The US uses self-identified ancestry, nationality, and origin. Studies of the demographics of the world use common ancestry, language, and culture. The US comprises a population of 334 million people. No single ancestry is a majority.
The largest self-reported ancestries are German (12%), English (9%), Irish (9%), unspecified American (5%), and Italian (5%). The largest pan-ethnic groups are Hispanic/Latino (20%), African American (14%), Asian (7%), and Native American/Alaska Native (1-2%). Foreign born residents is 14%. Therefore, German, English, Irish, and Hispanic comprise half of the US, but with overlap.
The world has 8.2 billion people. The United States is 4% of the world population. Yet, their sociopolitics, charged and neutral, get applied to the world. This seems inappropriate and inaccurate. 3 distinct ethnolinguistic blocs comprise a larger share of the global population than the 4% held by Americans.
Han Chinese (Sinitic language family) comprise 17% of the global population. Indo-Aryan peoples (Begali, Hindi, and Punjabi) comprise 13%. Arabs (Arabic-speaking) comprise 6%. Each exist in the US. None exists asa large minority in the US [See above].
More than 7,000 ethnic groups extant in the world. May we take ourselves as persons then peoples first, perhaps?
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
“advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
“mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
“opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
“eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
“clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
“vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
“Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
The Father of British Columbia, Sir James Douglas, is worshipped in the community where I grew up. Not for nothing, he had achievements, but he had a mixed history in numerous ways. He had a “mixed history” as HBC Chief Factor and colonial governor. He granted monopolistic privileges to his company and family.
This mixed public office and private profit. He imposed property-based voting qualifications, excluding full representation. He set forth unfair First Nations treaties. The Douglas Treaties were signed on blank sheets, with terms inserted afterward—an unusual practice. Unilaterally, these were later signed, resulting in Indigenous signatories having land cessions that were not fully known.
He had a heavy-handed gold rush policy with licensing schemes and delayed enforcement during the Fraser Canyon conflict. These failed to protect Indigenous communities. Violence and village burnings ensued. He recruited black Californian settlers for political loyalty. It was opportunistic rather than principled efforts for the enfranchisement of blacks. He was from Guyana. A fascinating history to learn about one’s happenstance of contingent past circumstances: his contemporary presentation is not an exercise in false equivalence. It is about a united duality of positive and negative valence.
The living recent history reflects this mixed history in Fort Langley, out of Langley, with the crossovers between hipster intellectual farmers and well-educated, well-off Evangelical Christians, Trinity Western University, and the political shenanigans of Christians here impacting the federal level of the country. I wanted to cover some of this controversial recent history, as having a singular reference for some of the township’s more noteworthy shenanigans. For clarity, I speak as a former member of one of the heritage committees of an association in Fort Langley and another for the Township of Langley. I can say, “Heritage matters to Langleyites.” As an elder Euro-Canadian lady told me on the committee, a fellow committee member, it was in a sharp snarl once at a meeting, “I know who you are.” These were not isolated events throughout my life while growing up and through there. So it goes.
The contemporary Evangelical Christian story in Fort Langley began with a sexual misconduct allegation of the longest-standing university president in Canadian history: 2005-2006 with former university president Neil Snider. I would rather this notbe the case, but it is the history. Something worth repeating.
2005–2015: Institutional Unease and Image Discipline
He had the longest tenure of any Canadian university president—32 years–and greatly grew Trinity Western University (TWU) in its early decades. That is a testament to his prowess as an administrator of resources and an inspirer of people at the time. In their terminology, he had the Holy Spirit in him.
Unfortunately, an uncomfortable truth was his retirement in 2006 following sexual misconduct allegations. Internal reports from TWU and contemporary media reviews questioned the administrative decisions around this. The community is embarrassed by it and tries to cover it up. I understand that part. It happens with clergy-related abuse cases too: Institutional protection. However, as one colleague’s mom who worked with him said to me, in a way to excuse it, “He was lonely,” because either his wife died or he was divorced. I leave considerations of the elasticity of excuse-making to the reader.
ChristianWeek’s “Trinity Western Resolves Human Rights Complaint” documented the 2005 human rights complaint against Snider. The settlement impacted subsequent policy reviews. Former faculty interviews showed early signs of institutional unease. Evangelical leaders have undergone these scandals.
A CAUT Report, “Report of an Inquiry Regarding Trinity Western University,” examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the religious Covenant. You can see TWU’s current Community Covenant. William Bruneau and Thomas Friedman examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the Covenant and possible impacts on academic hiring and free speech. Case studies and personal accounts of faculty are incorporated. It is a referenced report in academic discussions on religion and academia in Canada.
2005-2015 was a busy few years. Ex-administrators and archival internal memos showed dissent regarding mandatory religious practices. Similar controversies happen in religious universities in Canada, all private, all Christian. The largest is Evangelical, and the largest is TWU, in Langley. After trying to get many interviews with professors and dissenting students in the community, the vast majority declined over many years of journalistic efforts, and a few agreed to a coffee conversation to express opinions. Most opinions dissent from the norm of TWU while affirming the difficulties for the faith with these straight-and-narrow executives, who are not reined in, reign with impunity, and rain neglect on their community’s inner Other.
2016–2018: The Covenant and the Courts
Circa 2016, some online commentators mentioned how they felt “bad for the kids that realize they’re not straight” at TWU as “Coming out is hard,” and “it’s crazy that people still want to go to this school.” A former student acknowledged some student support for LGBTI peers while warning many feel “quite ostracized” by an “unspoken aura” repressing non-Christian views. An LGBTI student may have to “repress their urges based on a stupid covenant.”
Other online forums include a former student union leader noting the “community covenant is outdated” even by 2013, while another urged the university to rethink the Covenant. Saying there is a “thriving rape culture,” “I know more than five girls who were raped [at TWU], who didn’t report it because they believed they would be shamed and not taken seriously.”
Maclean’s in “The end of the religious university?” talked about the long-standing interest in the national debate around religious mandates in higher education and the central role of TWU. These controversies about academic freedom following Snider’s resignation would echo some other community elements there. BBC Newscommented that Canada approved a homophobic law school in 2013. This would eventually evolve poorly for TWU and reflect terribly on the surrounding community.
Xtra Magazine’s“The Painful Truth About Being Gay at Canada’s Largest Christian University” featured a series of robust testimonies from current and former students on systemic discrimination. The magazine also examined campus surveys, student blogs, and some student activist groups, with a case study of academic panels addressing LGBTI issues within religious institutions. The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision on TWU’s Law School accreditation in 2018. It was analyzed by legal journals and cited in academic papers. Those looked to religious mandates and the tensions with legal equality.
Knowing some minority facets of dynamics in this community, many will slander others and lie to protect themselves, particularly their identity as represented via the incursion of Evangelical Orthodoxy into the community via the university. This small township’s controversies went to the Supreme Court of Canada. They lost in a landslide decision, 7-2. The Vancouver Sun had various coverage, with international critiques comparing TWU’s controversy to European and Australian scandals. Regardless, TWU brought global spotlight on a small township, a tiny town.
Global human rights organizations gave commentary. TWU dropped the Community Covenant as mandatory, but only for students, while staff, faculty, and administration maintained it. A TWU student asserted on Reddit:
TWU student here. The only two reasons why the Board of Governors chose to drop the Covenant for students is because a) The recent court ruling, and b) Their other professional programs (counselling, nursing, and teaching) received letters from their respective accrediting bodies which threatened to pull accreditation unless the Covenant was amended or discarded.
TWU’s decision to make signing the Covenant voluntary for students has nothing to do with morality or human rights, but everything to do with their business model. Keep in mind, the faculty still must sign the pledge, and TWU’s mission and mandate of producing “godly Christian leaders” has not changed.
The next era was 2019-2021.
2019–2021: Cultural Stagnation Despite Legal Losses
Xtra Magazine in “I am queer at Trinity Western University. What will it take for my university to listen to me?” provided a more individual story. Carter Sawatzky wrote, “TWU’s decision in 2018 to make the Covenant non-mandatory for students also did not magically change the discriminatory treatment of queer people. After TWU’s 2018 Supreme Court loss, many folks, including myself, had hoped that TWU would finally demonstrate that it can be rooted in faith and radically loving and welcoming. Instead, TWU has doubled down on its social conservatism, at the expense of queer students like myself.” An international scandal and Supreme Court defeat did not change the culture or the school. That is instructive.
Langley is a township where I am told the murder of the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was merciful. An older gentleman saying, “Her murder was an act of mercy.” Langley Advance Times in “Private Langley University rejects LGBTQ+ event request” reported denying an event request, One TWU Stories Night, for an LGBTI group, One TWU. Carter Sawatzky said, “We are sharing our stories, which I think should be a non-controversial thing… It is not a contradiction. You can be queer and Christian… Many people come to TWU and have never heard an LGBTQ story.” That is a reasonable statement. A One TWU piece published on its site claims homophobia is rampant on campus.
CBC News reported on the manslaughter conviction of a TWU security guard. “Former guard at B.C. university found guilty of manslaughter” reported a Fall 2020 event involving “a man wearing all black” who wandered into student residences, rifling through their things. Security guard Howard Glen Hill hit the man, Jack Cruthers Hutchison, “in the head, pulled his hair and spat on him.” Police arrived: Hill was “in a neck restraint, limp and unresponsive. He died in the hospital two days later.” Hutchison was charged with manslaughter. TWU’s statement: “The university has no comment on the court ruling. TWU’s commitment has always been to safeguard our campus community, and we continue to provide a safe place of learning for all our students.”
Langley Union, in “Trinity Western University President’s Son Linked to Prolific White Nationalist Account,” investigated digital forensic evidence of the son of the President of TWU linked to a White Nationalist online account. The son’s actions should be considered separate from the father’s and the institutions. However, they are striking news.
The accounts claimed, among other assertions, “I believe in a white future. An Aryan future. A future where my children will make Indian Bronson shine our shoes. Where brown people cannot secure a line of credit, Black people pick cotton. We will win – this is what we fight for,” and “I am a colonialist. I make no effort to hide this. I believe in worldwide white supremacy.”
The Nelson Star reported in “‘Alt-right’ group uses Fort Langley historic site as meeting place” on the use of the local pub in Fort Langley as a meeting place for a public, so known and self-identified White Nationalist group. As one former boss noted, “I don’t know what is wrong with we the white race.” That is a sentiment, not an organization, however. This microcosm reflects a broader history of Canadian sociopolitics with race and religion, some Evangelicals and occasional allegations of racialism if not racism.
TWU’s policy is Inclusive Excellence. “We aim to promote a consistent atmosphere of inclusion and belonging at TWU by establishing a shared commitment to diversity and equity founded in the gospel’s truth. Christ came to save, reconcile, and equip all people (Rev. 7:9), and the incredible array of gifts God has given us is evidence of his creativity, beauty, and love of diversity,” it states. An administrator is reported to have said informally that the event was ‘not in line with Evangelical values.’
In the States, a trend in international Evangelical higher education is here too. Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2000, involving federal funding and accreditation debates. In Australia, Christian colleges faced scrutiny for policies excluding LGBTI+ students and staff. Faith-based codes and equality laws produced tensions in the United Kingdom, though less prominently than in Canada. Those American churches want to influence Canada in Indigenous communities. Some Canadian churches have Ojibwe pastors, for example.
A Medium (Xtra) post entitled “The painful truth about being gay at Canada’s largest Christian university” commented on the experience of a gay student, Jacob.’ As peers messaged Jacob on suspicion of him being gay, “We hate everything about you and you better watch your back because we are going to kill you on your way to school.” At TWU ‘Jacob,’ said, “I loved the community here so much that I did not want to jeopardize those relationships.” That is called a closet.
Another student, Corben, from Alberta at TWU, said, “My parents, I think, kind of wanted Trinity to be for me sort of like reparative therapy, which is why they would only help financially with this school.” Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put forth a move to end Conversion Therapy, a discredited pseudotherapy to change sexual orientation and gender identity. Conversion therapy has been banned in Malta (2016), Germany (2020), France (2022), Canada (2022), New Zealand (2022), Iceland (2023), Spain (2023), Mexico (2024), Greece (2024), and Belgium (2024). That is only TWU, however. The community of Langley, specifically Fort Langley, where I was raised, is substantively linked to this place.
Langley Advance Times in “Blackface photo in 2017 Chilliwack yearbook sparks apology from school principal” reported on a blackface incident at a local school. It was part of a “mock trial.” So, bad taste in community, and the excuse for Snider’s example will likely do the same in this case over term. There are several cases of sexual misconduct cases in British Columbia and Canada. The Archdiocese of Vancouver was the first in Canada to publicly name clergy involved in sexual abuse and decades of abuse. At the same time, other prominent cases have arisen, including Michael Conaghan, Damian Lawrence Cooper, and Erlindo Molon, highlighting a pattern of clerical sexual exploitation and inadequate accountability in British Columbia. I would rather this not be the case, but it is the history.
In 2022, a TWU dean resigned amid pressure over her work on gender issues. One Reddit–and all Reddit commentary should be considered additions, while anecdotal at best–user described how TWU leaders had “tried to make her leave her position as dean because she… stated she was an lgbtq+ ally,” then issued bureaucratic statements of grief based on her departure.
Living there, these excuses likely flowed through social media. At the same time, community intimidation happens, too. It is bad for the community image and bad for the business. People have an interest in narrative morphing. As gay students find at TWU, and as outsiders as others find in the general community, it is mostly not about moral stances, but about image maintenance and business interests. Money matters because it is a well-to-do area of the country and a wealthy nation worldwide. There is regular township nonsense where the Fort Langley Night Market gets closed down due to vandalism and alcohol.
Ongoing online conversations about TWU degree quality continue, “So before those say ‘it’s an immigration scam’, it’s not and is essentially useless towards immigrating/coming to Canada. With that said, most of TWU’s programs are also useless to use towards immigrating, even if studied in person, because any non-degree program from a private school does not allow one to apply for a PGWP. However, it offers a couple of degree programs that can result in a PGWP.”
Brandon Gabriel and Eric Woodward have been at loggerheads for at least a decade. If you look at the original history, this reflects another fight between an Indigenous leader and the colonial presence in its history. Now, they are a local artist and developer, respectively. Woodward has a camp of supporters for development and a camp of detractors. Another mixed figure in the contemporary period of Langley. Over development concerns and pushback, Woodward got a building painted pink in protest at one point. It is a serious township history full of a minority of loud, silly people imposing their nonsense on a smaller group of innocent bystanders.
Whether LGBTI discrimination ensconced at its university, a blackface principal, homophobia, this isn’t unusual in a way. A constellation of apparent White Nationalist superminority undercurrents popping up, and with worship of a founder in a democracy who was a mixed-race colonialist timocrat married to a Cree woman, it’s a story of a Canadian town and municipality. A tale of how foundational myths, when left unexamined, morph into social realities.
Welcome to Langley–a light introduction: Home, sorta.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, a Canadian psychologist and theorist, developed the concept of the memetic self—a culturally constructed identity formed from transmissible units of meaning called memes. He explores how language, culture, and social interaction give rise to self-awareness, tracing its development from mirror recognition in animals to modern identity. Robertson uses self-mapping, a therapeutic tool that visualizes a person’s identity through linked memes, to address fragmentation in conditions like autism, Alzheimer’s, and dissociative identity disorder. His work emphasizes coherence, volition, and cultural adaptability, and his forthcoming book—coauthored with his daughter—applies these insights to psychotherapy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re joined by Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson. He is a Canadian psychologist, educator, and theorist known for his innovative work on the culturally constructed self. With over 40 years of experience in counselling and educational psychology, he developed the concept of the memetic self—a cognitive framework composed of culturally transmitted ideas (or “memes”) that shape an individual’s identity. He is the author of The Evolved Self: Mapping an Understanding of Who We Are and a pioneer of self-mapping, a visual and therapeutic method for exploring and restructuring identity. His work bridges psychology, philosophy, and cultural studies, offering practical tools for therapy and education while exploring questions of free will, agency, and the evolution of selfhood across diverse cultures. Mr. Robertson, thank you very much for joining me again today. I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure.
Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: You’re welcome. I’m looking forward to this, Scott.
Jacobsen: So, what is the self?
Robertson: Oh, that’s pretty basic. Okay. The self is a construct, as you mentioned in your introduction. Thank you for that generous overview. Your question is, “What is the self?” The self is a conceptual framework we use to define who we are. It is not a physical entity in the brain but rather a cognitive and cultural construct—a mental map that incorporates beliefs, values, experiences, and roles.
This construct has evolved. One of the earliest indications of self-awareness in our evolutionary lineage is mirror self-recognition, which has been observed in some great apes, dolphins, elephants, and magpies. In our hominin ancestors, the development of language and culture allowed for increasingly complex and abstract self-concepts.
Recognizing one’s reflection—understanding that “this is me”—marks a foundational moment in developing self-awareness. Although early humans may not have had the language to describe it, the ability to form a concept of self-based on reflection and social interaction was critical. This capacity laid the groundwork for the complex, culturally mediated selves we navigate today.
From that modest beginning, our ancestors gradually evolved the capacity for social interaction. They needed a rudimentary idea of who they were to engage socially, even if it was not consciously articulated.
Language development significantly boosted the evolution of the self. Once we moved beyond simple two-slot grammar—like “him run”—to more complex phonetic constructs, we could combine distinct sounds that held no individual meaning but could generate an almost unlimited number of words.
With that, collections of words took on new, layered meanings. As this linguistic complexity emerged, our self-definition became more nuanced, expanded, and refined. About 50,000 years ago, humans began burying their dead. This act implies a recognition of mortality and a developing self-concept about life and death.
The most recent significant change in our understanding of the self—as part of cultural evolution—may have occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago. I say “may” because it could have emerged earlier, but our evidence dates to that period, particularly from Greek writing and Egyptian hieroglyphics. Of course, many earlier cultures lacked writing systems, so we cannot be definitive about when this modern conception of self emerged.
What is this self I’m referring to? It includes the ideas of volition, constancy over time, and uniqueness. For instance, although you and I, Scott, share many characteristics, I do not believe you are me, and vice versa. Even if I had an identical twin—same genetics, upbringing, and experiences—I still would not recognize him as myself. That sense of uniqueness is part of the “modern self”—a culturally evolved manifestation of identity with an inherent sense of individualism.
Here is the great irony: we are a social species, and the self emerged through social interaction within early human communities, particularly tribal Neolithic groups. The self could not have developed in isolation; it depends on interaction with others. So, we are fundamentally shaped by collectivism, even though individualism is built into our modern self. This creates an internal tension between the group’s needs and the individual’s autonomy.
Historically, that tension was mediated by religion—specifically, organized religion, which kept people in their social roles. In Western civilizations, a deity often prescribed those roles, and individuals could not transcend them. Tradition or ancestor worship defined the limits of the self in other cultural contexts.
Societies that completely suppressed the modern self remained stagnant, while those that permitted at least some individuals to develop a sense of autonomous selfhood became more adaptive. This is because the self is a powerful tool for problem-solving. It allows us to reinsert ourselves into past experiences as protagonists, to relive and learn from those events, and to rehearse possible futures mentally. We can adjust our behaviour accordingly. These are valuable psychological skills.
But they also come at a cost. With the modern self comes the capacity for anxiety and existential distress. I doubt that our earliest ancestors experienced clinical depression or anxiety disorders as we know them today. These conditions are part of the psychological “baggage” of possessing a self capable of complex reflection and future projection.
For millennia, the self was constrained—kept “on a leash,” so to speak—until a set of unique historical conditions emerged in Europe. Specifically, during and before the Enlightenment, the Catholic Church—which had long functioned to suppress individualism—lost control, particularly during the Reformation and the ensuing religious wars between Catholics and Protestants.
Individuals gained some permission to explore personal identity when centralized religious authority broke down. This blossomed into what we now call the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment did not invent the self—it authorized it. Not entirely, of course—we remain social beings with embedded restrictions—but it granted more freedom to individuals to develop their understandings.
This led to the rise of modern science and humanism. Knowledge was no longer handed down by authority. Instead, it became something you had to demonstrate through observation, reason, and experimentation. These practices allowed individuals to engage with a reality beyond themselves.
And that is where humanism emerged. So, you asked me what the self is—and now you see: when you ask me a question, you get a long-winded answer.
Jacobsen: How do you define “meme” within the framework of The Evolved Self?
Robertson: The word “meme” has had an unfortunate evolution. It was initially coined by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s. Dawkins coined the term “meme” to represent a self-replicating unit of culture.
For instance, a simple descriptor like the colour red is not a meme. It’s merely a physical property description, not a transmissible concept that evolves culturally. A meme, in contrast, is more than an idea; it is a cultural construct that carries meaning across individuals and generations.
Dawkins defined a meme as something broader than a simple descriptor but narrower than an entire ideology, religion, or belief system. The latter, of course, is composed of many memes—interrelated units of culture. You can, for example, substitute the colour red in a conceptual framework with blue, and the core concept might remain, but the meme is more than any one element—it has internal structure and transmissibility.
Unfortunately, Dawkins did not have the opportunity to develop the theory entirely. His work was criticized for being tautological. Critics asked, “How can you prove this? How do we observe or measure a meme?” These questions challenged the concept’s empirical rigour.
In my research, I proposed a refined definition of a meme: it must be a culture unit with behavioural, qualitative, and emotional (or emotive) implications. A proper meme is not just a label or idea—it affects how we feel, act, and make meaning.
This also resolves a challenge Dawkins left open—his observation that memes can have “attractive” or “repulsive” properties. He did not elaborate on the mechanics of that.
In my framework, if one meme naturally leads to another—like how “love” often leads to “marriage” in cultural narratives—that linkage reflects an attractive force between memes. Conversely, when two memes are psychologically or conceptually incompatible—”love” and “hate” coexisting as core guiding values in the exact moment—that reflects a repellent force.
My work on the modern self is composed of a collection of memes that are primarily attractive to one another. If a meme within that structure becomes repellent—meaning it no longer aligns with the rest of the self—it tends to be ejected. That is how we maintain coherent, relatively stable identities.
Of course, not everyone has a stable sense of self. My work as a psychologist involves helping people reconfigure their self-concepts when internal inconsistencies cause distress.
Now, where things get tricky is the evolution of the word “meme” online. The internet popularized the term in a way that deviates from its original definition. Internet memes typically involve humour or juxtaposition—two ideas or images that don’t usually go together. While some may qualify as memes in the original sense, internet usage represents a narrow and diluted interpretation.
Jacobsen: Did I hear you correctly? You’re saying the modern meme online sometimes overlaps with Dawkins’ definition, but only in a limited sense.
Robertson: Yes, exactly. Internet memes sometimes fulfill the criteria but rarely capture the deeper behavioural and emotional dimensions Dawkins originally gestured toward—which I’ve tried to formalize more clearly.
Jacobsen: So, how does this fit into your work on self-mapping?
Robertson: Good question.
One of the most academically grounded ways to create a self-map is to ask someone to describe who they are. You use prompting questions to elicit a detailed, rich description of their self-concept.
I collect those self-descriptions in my research—just like this interview is being recorded. I transcribe the responses and break the narrative into elemental units—essentially memes. Each unit is labelled and categorized. This approach parallels qualitative methods in social science research.
The coding method I use for self-mapping parallels the qualitative analysis approach developed by Miles and Huberman in the early 1990s.
You label each unit of meaning. A sentence could represent a single unit or contain multiple distinct concepts. You isolate those concepts into thematic categories—or “bins”—based on their shared meaning.
Then, if those units exhibit the characteristics I described earlier—qualitative, behavioural, and emotional implications—you can classify them as memes.
Next, you examine the relationships between those memes. You identify which memes are attracted to each other—either through thematic linkage or cause-effect associations—and chart those relationships. You map them visually, using lines to indicate attractive forces. That’s the core structure of the self-map I create.
Now, this method requires considerable time and effort.
So, to make the process more accessible, my daughter—a psychologist—and I developed a quicker method in collaboration with a colleague from Athabasca University. We created a structured questionnaire with 40 core prompts, which could be expanded to 50 or 60.
The questions focus on four primary areas. First, we ask: “Who are you?” People might respond with statements like “I’m a father” or “I’m a chess player.” These are self-descriptive memes—cultural elements that express identity.
Then, we ask: “What are 10 things you like about yourself?” and “What are 10 things you would change if you could?” Finally, we ask: “What are 10 things you believe to be true?”
One of my clients, earlier this year, offered a novel and powerful addition to the exercise: “What are 10 things you keep hidden from others?” That insight added emotional depth and complexity to the map.
Once we gather that data, we create a visual self-map, following the same principles as in my academic research. I jokingly call this the “quick and dirty” version, but it works. My daughter Teela and I have used it successfully with many clients.
The crucial step is refining the map with the client until they recognize themselves. That map resonates when they say, “Yes, this is me,” reflecting their identity. We become psychologists if something important is missing, like a sense of personal agency or volition.
We help them develop those underrepresented self-elements based on an idealized model of the modern self—a coherent, autonomous individual identity. When parts are missing or fragmented, we work to integrate them.
We should do a formal academic study to validate this quick method, but based on clinical experience, it works.
Jacobsen: If we take all these elements and look at them as a whole, we’re essentially describing an “evolved self.” That allows us to examine the coherent identity of a person. How would you describe someone who lacks a coherent self or identity?
Robertson: That does happen. Not everyone possesses a well-formed self.
Jacobsen: Please explain.
Robertson: Take classical autism, for example—the traditional form I learned about during my training, not the broader, more ambiguous “autism spectrum disorder” currently defined by the APA. That modern definition is so diffuse that it’s challenging to apply meaningfully in clinical settings.
In classical autism, you may encounter children who engage in highly repetitive, self-soothing behaviours. One case I worked with involved a boy who spent most of his day swinging a string with a weight on the end, keeping it taut in a circular motion. Even while eating—an essential survival activity—he needed the string in his hand. If someone took it away, he would have a full-blown panic attack.
At that level of autism, the individual lacks a coherent self.
One key indicator is the absence of what psychologists call “theory of mind”—the capacity to understand that others have thoughts, feelings, and motivations similar to one’s own.
The theory of mind is essential. It allows us to interpret the behaviour of others based on internal states. For example, I can infer that you, Scott, have emotions and goals. If I understand your context, I can anticipate your next question. That’s mind-reading—not in a mystical sense but in a psychological, predictive sense. It’s something we all do constantly.
It is vital for navigating everyday life. For example, when driving, we anticipate that other people will stay on the correct side of the road. In Canada, that means the right side. We base this assumption on our shared cultural understanding, which generally holds.
Jacobsen: So, what happens to people who do not have a self?
Robertson: There are others, aside from individuals with severe autism, who also lack a coherent self. One group includes people with advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
There’s a poignant story told by an Alzheimer’s researcher—I’m forgetting the researcher’s name, but the story involved a woman who would visit her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s. She would begin by introducing herself each time: “My name is [X], and I’m your wife.” Once he understood her name and the relationship, they could converse coherently.
Then, one day, after she introduced herself and said, “I’m your wife,” he looked at her and asked, “Yes, and who am I?”
He genuinely did not know. So yes, there are people who lose their sense of self. It is rare, but it happens. Most people have a self—and nearly always, there’s a one-to-one correspondence between self and body.
Jacobsen: This brings me to three points of contact for further questions.
The first two are based on your description, and the third is a broader conceptual issue. First, in the case of someone with what might be considered a nonstandard profile on the autism spectrum—who meets the characteristics you mentioned—what are the legal and professional implications of working with someone who, by your clinical analysis, lacks a functional self?
Second, in cases involving advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s, how do you interpret situations where a person can still speak in coherent, functional language yet openly asks, “Who am I?” or “Do you know who I am?”
Robertson: Those are deep and difficult questions.
In the case of someone with classic autism, we generally assume that a parent or legal guardian is involved—someone who can authorize professional intervention. The goal is to help the individual develop skills that improve quality of life. Whether or not these interventions fully succeed is another matter, but we do try—and sometimes, we help.
With advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s, things get more complicated—particularly when it comes to end-of-life care and living wills. You may have someone who no longer remembers ever having signed a living will, and yet, according to that document, medical professionals are instructed to allow them to die.
It raises profound ethical dilemmas. You may encounter someone who still shows signs of a will to live—even joy or affection—but can no longer comprehend their identity or the implications of past decisions. That contradiction is ethically challenging.
Jacobsen: I have a will to live and a living will to die. I cannot know who I am, yet I still live.
Robertson: Right. It’s not a lack of will—it’s a lack of cognitive ability to know.
Jacobsen: What about cases involving dissociative identity disorder—what used to be called multiple personality disorder? In those situations, more than one “self” seems to coexist in the same body.
Robertson: That diagnosis is controversial. Not all professionals agree that it reflects an actual condition. However, conceptually, it’s possible—because the self is a cultural construct.
The self is not a metaphysical entity that inhabits the body. Instead, it describes a person shaped by cultural constructs that include the body and socially mediated self-understanding. Think of the body and brain as the hardware and the self as the software—cultural programming that shapes perception, behaviour, and identity.
Given that framework, it’s theoretically possible for multiple “selves” to coexist—though this would be a scarce and complex scenario.The older term “Multiple Personality Disorder” implicitly recognizes the possibility of multiple selves. The term “dissociative identity disorder” implies a fragmented self.
Now, I’ve never worked personally with someone diagnosed with multiple selves, so I’m speaking from theoretical and scholarly understanding here.
From what I’ve read, therapists who work with such clients often report that one becomes dominant or “emergent” while others recede. The therapeutic aim, typically, is to integrate these multiple selves into a coherent whole so the individual can function more effectively.
There’s a fringe view in psychology suggesting that this therapeutic integration is akin to “murder”—that by fostering one coherent self, we are erasing others. I don’t accept that view. That’s an extreme form of ideological overreach.
Jacobsen: This introduces another critical nuance. The self emerges not only across human history—it also unfolds across individual development. The self is not present at conception or birth in its complete form. It’s an evolved pattern of information—a construct that takes shape over time. And, just as it can emerge, it can also deteriorate.
In advanced age or due to disease, the body and many faculties may still function—but the self might fade away. In that sense, you could argue that the self has a lifespan within the human lifespan. People talk about lifespan, and increasingly about healthspan—but perhaps we should also talk about a “self-span.”
Robertson: That’s an intriguing idea—a self-span.
Jacobsen: It would be difficult to measure precisely, of course, especially given the limitations of quick-and-dirty self-assessment methods versus more rigorous, clinical approaches like self-mapping. Still, it’s a meaningful concept.
If the self is a cultural construct, we might ask: Do different cultures shape the self in ways that affect when it tends to emerge developmentally? Does the self appear earlier or later, depending on the cultural context?
Robertson: That’s a fascinating question. I do not have a definitive answer, but I’ve mapped the selves of people from the interior of China, from Siberia, and collectivist communities in North America. Every culture I’ve studied has a self.
Here’s where the cultural variation becomes evident: different cultures emphasize different aspects of the self. One of the people I mapped was a woman from a traditional family in the interior of China.
Yes, she had the same structural aspects of the self-found in North American individuals, including a volitional component. But that part of her self—the volitional aspect—was not valued in her cultural context. Instead, family duty and moral conduct traits were emphasized, reflecting collectivist values.
So, structurally, her self was similar. But culturally, the valued components were different. What made this particularly interesting is that after mapping herself, she described herself as feeling like a “robot,” and she decided that was not a good thing.
Over about eight or nine months, she resolved to start making her own decisions. This did not prove easy because most of us do not make conscious decisions at every moment. Typically, we rely on habit, social norms, or deference to authority. For example, someone might say, “Lloyd Robertson says this is a good idea, so I’ll go with that.”
But most of the time, we act on autopilot. However, she began engaging in conscious decision-making—evaluating possible outcomes, comparing alternatives, weighing probabilities, and assigning value. She did this even with mundane choices like what to eat or wear in the morning.
It exhausted her. She felt she was getting nowhere. Eventually, she decided: “My life is too valuable to waste making every decision consciously. I’m going back to being a robot.”
But here’s the key insight: to make that decision, she had to engage her volitional self.
She never abandoned it. It was still there—intact, available, and waiting for the next time she chose to use it.
Jacobsen: Let’s say we have a rare case of genuine dual selves in one body. And to be clear, I do not mean conjoined twins—cases where two individuals share some neural connectivity. I’m referring to a single individual whose psychology has bifurcated. What if their volitional trajectories—their vector spaces—are at odds with one another?
This reminds me of a presentation by V. S. Ramachandran, the neurologist known for the mirror box experiment. He referenced split-brain patients—individuals whose corpus callosum had been surgically severed to treat epilepsy.
In such cases, if you cover one eye, you direct stimuli to only one hemisphere. For example, when Ramachandran asked these patients if they believed in God—by pointing up for “yes” or down for “no”—the left hemisphere might point “yes,” while the right pointed “no.”
The individual would often laugh in response. Ramachandran joked that this showed the right hemisphere had a sense of humour.
But there’s a more profound point here: split-brain patients can manifest two conflicting worldviews—internally consistent but contradictory selves. In theological terms, this raises amusing but profound questions. For instance, if belief grants salvation, does one hemisphere go to heaven and the other to hell?
On a more serious note, when these volitional patterns conflict—not just on trivial matters but on core values—what happens? And for those who criticize integration therapy as “murdering” a self, how do you respond?
Robertson: The split-brain experiments are fascinating but differ from dissociative identity disorder, a distinct condition.
In most people, the right hemisphere houses spatial awareness and emotional reasoning, while the left hemisphere tends to handle verbal processing. When the corpus callosum is severed, these two systems can no longer communicate so that each side may draw on separate memories or frameworks.
In an intact brain, people typically build a worldview—a cognitive map of how the world works. This worldview often resides in the left hemisphere. When incoming information conflicts with that map, people experience cognitive dissonance.
Eventually, the left hemisphere, which governs executive control and higher reasoning, will normally create a worldview representing our understanding of how the world works. We have many defence mechanisms that we use to keep that worldview intact, but at some point our constructed reality diverges too far from objective reality. The right brain, at a feeling level “dissolves” the construct and the left brain then begins creating a new or amended worldview. It does not happen often, but it happens enough to keep us psychologically adaptive.
Now, returning to your question: Is there a God? If only one hemisphere believes, which is correct?
Well, that depends on which side holds the belief. Humanism, for example, is highly cerebral—logical, empirical, and grounded in enlightenment thought. It is likely rooted in left-brain processes. Compassion, however, may bridge both hemispheres.
Jacobsen: So, what is the right brain holding onto?
Robertson: Something interesting happened to me the other day. I woke up with a Christian hymn running through my head—one I learned in my fundamentalist upbringing.
It struck me: Where did that come from? It must have been encoded deeply. I was baptized not once but twice, in complete immersion both times.
That early religious imprint likely lodged itself somewhere in my right hemisphere. It may be largely inactive now, but it is not gone.
Jacobsen: So, do developmental trajectories matter here?
You were raised with those strong evangelical influences at a young age, and even though you’ve moved beyond them, they left an imprint. Neuroscientifically, we know the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—the seat of executive function—is the last part of the brain to develop. Evolutionarily, it’s also the most recent.
As far as we know, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—responsible for executive function—is the last part of the brain to develop. Most people usually complete that maturation in their mid-twenties. So, these systems take a long time to become fully online and must then be integrated with other neural networks.
Do developmental phases like the second significant period of synaptic pruning in adolescence reflect more concrete hardware changes, as opposed to the cultural software changes that occur across a person’s life?
Robertson: I like your question, Scott. And the answer is yes.
Jacobsen: Yay.
Robertson: If someone were raised entirely in the wild—say, the fictional case of a boy raised by wolves—we would not expect them to develop what I call the modern self.
The self is a cultural construct. Children are taught to have a self; one key mechanism is language acquisition. For example, when a child cries and the caregiver says, “Is Bobby hungry?” that implicitly teaches the child that Bobby has internal states—needs, desires, and preferences. That is the beginning of selfhood.
Your point about adolescence is spot on. The self is not fully formed in early childhood. In many ways, individual development parallels cultural evolution. Adolescence—especially early adolescence—is about experimentation, identity formation, and exploration. Teenagers try out roles, test boundaries, and slowly determine, “This is who I am,” or, “No, that’s not me.”
We must be cautious about defining someone’s self prematurely during this construction phase. You cannot predict how it will turn out, and efforts to control that process can be harmful.
There’s research suggesting the human brain continues maturing until around age 25. Jokingly, maybe we should not let people vote until they’re 25—but of course, I can say that now that I’m well past that age.
In truth, development is highly individual. Some mature earlier, others later. And yes, building on your earlier point, there may be significant cultural differences in how and when the self develops. That’s an area ripe for further research.
Now, when I say modern self-development and spread across all known cultures, there’s a practical reason: societies without individuals capable of forming modern selves could not compete with those that had them.
Jacobsen: What makes the modern self more competitive?
Robertson: Our sense of individuality.
In Christianity, for example, Scripture often exhorts individuals to “give up the self.” That very statement acknowledges the self’s existence and its power.
Such a sacrifice is required because the individual self can threaten collective stability. It challenges authority, tradition, and rigid social roles.
Jacobsen: That connects back to your earlier point—cultures that lack individuals with a modern self lose their competitive edge.
Robertson: Here’s the value of having a self.
In traditional cultures, individuals typically had an earlier form of self—defined primarily by their place in the collective. In response to threats or challenges, behaviours were guided by tribal memory, stories, and rigid social roles.
For example, if an enemy appeared, people would respond according to long-established patterns—based on age, gender, and status in the group. There was no need—or room—for improvisation.
But what happens when a new, unfamiliar situation arises—something the culture has not encountered before and for which there is no ritual?
In such cases, traditional cultures often turned to oracles—individuals capable of novel reasoning, that is, problem-solving. I suspect those early oracles possessed a more developed, volitional self, which is why they were trusted in the first place.
Similarly, in Hindu society, Brahmins were given a rigorous education, allowing them to cultivate modern selves capable of insight and judgment. But they were a small elite.
In many cultures, people who had developed themselves were respected and closely managed. They were given roles where they could contribute without disrupting social order.
The self-concept eventually spread across all human societies because we are a nomadic, adaptive species. We move, we mix, we evolve.
Just look at our evolutionary history—we even interbred with Neanderthals.
We interact. I do not believe a human society has ever been so isolated that its members lacked a developed self. But if such a group exists—perhaps an uncontacted tribe deep in the Amazon—I would love to study them.
Jacobsen: When I attended the 69th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, I participated in a session featuring Ambassador Bob Rae of Canada. The session focused on Indigenous communities and was led by Indigenous women.
Someone on the panel mentioned a group from an isolated region—possibly resembling the cultural isolation you described. Their account of getting to the UN was striking. If you asked me how I got there, I’d say something like: “I took a bus to the airport, flew to New York, took the train…” For them, before all of that began, it started with a canoe.
That was their standard form of transportation before reaching any conventional transit station. So, even in that case, I would be hard-pressed to believe they were entirely uncontacted or isolated in today’s world.
Robertson: I agree. I suspect such total isolation no longer exists.
Interim Prime Minister Mark Carney of the Liberal Party of Canada will be running in the next federal election in Canada. He came from a Roman Catholic family history, particularly with his father, Robert James “Bob” Carney. He was a Catholic educator who lived and worked in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, in the 1960s. What is the history here? We can focus on superficial news analyses of “culturally retarded” and then leave the narrative about the father of the current Prime Minister, or look more deeply than centre-left news media and opinion in Canada or simply ignore it amongst centre-right media. Let us sidestep those.
Robert Carney served as the Principal of Fort Smith Federal Day School in 1965. Its official name was not Fort Smith Federal day School but Joseph Burr Tyrell School, which focused on the education of Indigenous children. Federally, JBT was run as an ‘Indian day school.” Principal Carney oversaw school Indigenous youth in the Fort Smith locale and children housed in nearby church-run residential facilities.
Carney was deeply committed and connected to the missional work of the Catholic Church in the North of Canada, which was aimed at the local Indigenous communities. He worked at the crossroads of government policy and Catholic educational efforts. Principal Carney was deeply committed to the Catholic faith based on an analysis of statements made in a 1965 CBC Radio interview. He discussed the program at JBT for–in his terms–“culturally retarded” Indigenous children. He defined the “culturally retarded child” as “a child from a Native background who, for various reasons, has not been in regular attendance in school.”
Indigenous children at JBT, in turn, were compared to the Euro-Canadian Catholic cultural and educational standards of the time. Principal Carney implemented assimilationist education policies discouraging the locale’s traditions and languages, favouring the English language and Catholic teachings. When speaking of Fort Smith and surrounding areas, we’re talking of Dene nations, e.g., Smith’s Landing First Nation (Thebacha Dene), Salt River First Nation, and Métis Communities.
These Métis communities were descendants of Dene and European (primarily French) fur traders. The primary language was Dënesųłiné (Chipewyan) by Smith’s Landing First Nation and Salt River First Nation. The Chipewyan people of Smith’s Landing First Nation are descendants of those from lower Slaver River and northeastern Alberta, while Salt River First Nation are those who signed Treaty 8 in 1899.
As per current commentary, Principal Carney was a principal of a federal day school and adhered to assimilationist education policies, but was not a residential school principal. He ran JBT, not the boarding facilities. However, these operated in tandem with the residential institutions of Fort Smith. Indigenous children were boarded at a hostel or residence run by the Catholic Church and then sent to JBT for day classes. Carney participated in the broader residential school infrastructure, while his professional title was Principal of a federal day school.
He was a vertex between Indigenous families and local communities, nuns, and clergy from the Roman Catholic Church who managed the hostels and missionary work. Fort Smith was formative for the work and life of Robert Carney circa 60 years ago. In the broader purview, Fort Smith functioned as a hub for residential schools and assimilationist educational efforts. (Roman Catholic) Church and State in Canada functioned in tandem with the colonial educational efforts of Euro-Canadians and the Catholic hierarchs. Oblate of Mary Immaculate and affiliated clergy had a strong presence with Bishop Gabriel Breynat (after which Breynat Hall was given its title) and Bishop Paul Piché leading initiatives there. The explicit purpose was to Christianize Indigenous children.
The accounts from former students, in addition to historical investigations, document severe abuse and trauma associated with the residential schools of Fort Smith. Grandin College, though, has been remembered–as per the mixed moral history of Canadian society–for its positive mentorship and high-quality education for the time. Breynat Hall is remembered for significant abuses. Survivors continue to speak out. JBT was known for mistreatment and discrimination too.
Jeannie Marie-Jewell, a Fort Smith Dene woman who became an NWT MLA, has recollections. She was made to attend it when her mother was sick. She described the supervision as “structured and strict,” with discipline crossing into cruelty. Others and Marie-Jewell report witnessing sexual abuse and physical abuse at Breynat Hall. Marie-Jewell stated, “At night, I remember I was too scared to look when the priests or the nuns took some of the kids out [of the dorm]. Moreover, these little girls would come back sobbing. So, what did they do with them at night? I spoke to a survivor who was there at the same time as me, and she said she was sexually abused there.” Sexual abuse has been identified at Breynat Hall by multiple survivors. This came to light in the 1990s and 2000s during lawsuits and the TRC process.
JBT’s former students recall a racially segregated and punitive environment. It is reported that non-Aboriginal children sat in the front of the room, and Aboriginal children sat in the back. Corporal punishment was used liberally, using either a ruler or a pointer if a student spoke the Native language or did not adhere to the rules. In the day school, there were violations of privacy and sexual boundaries, physical abuse and humiliation. We do not know the names of specific perpetrators from accounts. Girls were vulnerable and unprotected from predatory staff. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), in its Final Report (2015), documented widespread abuse in residential schools nationally. Fort Smith was no exception. Therefore, Breynat Hall survivors suffered harsh discipline, malnutrition, illness, and abuse at the hands of certain clergy and staff.
Decades later, Robert Carney reflected on the residential school system. He became an academic and remained a devout Catholic. He pursued graduate studies and wrote about Indigenous education policy. In authored articles, he emphasized what he saw as favourable and benign facets of residential schooling. These struck a chord when abuses came out in the 1990s and 2000s. He emphasized increased literacy and the dedication of the missionaries rather than dwelling on the abuses. Some historians have characterized this as “residential school denialism” or a distortion/minimization of residential schools. Interim Prime Minister Mark Carney is drawn into the public discussion due to the legacy and work of his father at JBT.
If therapy can be a vehicle for ideology, then clinicians risk repeating past abuses.
The article “The Danger of Decolonization Therapy” by Miri Bar-Halpern and Dean McKay, published on April 8, 2025, in Jewish Syndicate News, addressed concerns within the mental health field. The focus was on the partial politicization of some facets of therapeutic spaces.
Spotlight on Decolonization Therapy
Decolonization therapy is a psychological approach working on lasting impacts of colonialism by centring Indigenous knowledge, challenging Eurocentric models, and integrating social justice. This does not necessarily mean cultural psychology or Indigenous psychology: To acknowledge some systemic issues is different than imposed ideological stances ignoring principles of impartiality. The emphasis for Bar-Halpern and McKay is a particular strain and risk in this framework of therapy, implicitly. They argued decolonization therapy lacks sufficient rigorous scientific validation unlike Dialectical Behavioural Therapy or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
It can erase the core identity of some Jewish clients vis-a-vis Jewish identity and Zionism, and may retraumatize some Jewish clients. They make a call-to-action for the rejection of ideological coercion in therapy, protecting Jewish clinicians from discrimination, demanding high empirical standards of practices, addressing some nuanced antisemitism in mental-health training, and advocating for Jewish clients in this space. Naturally, colonialism is a factor in histories and people groups more recently affected remain extant. That’s not the question of concern here, but remains a question of concern in other conversations.
I would agree with the thrust of the arguments, while pumping the brakes modestly.
A Cautionary Tale: Sluggish Schizophrenia
I thought about this over a coffee one morning, whether to pursue analysis or not. I had another coffee and jotted some brain droppings down. I had some time today to synthesize some reflections. The piece made me think, rethink, question myself, et cetera. A reflection from a doctoral counselling psychologist colleague with Metis heritage, if that counts in context on prior politicization of an intended apolitical therapeutic space after reading the same article by Bar-Halpern and McKay:
In the mid-twentieth century, Soviet psychologists invented a category called “sluggish schizophrenia,” which they used to classify political dissenters as mentally ill. Psychology continues to be misused to push political agendas. Ethical psychologists do not push their views on their clients. Psychotherapy is designed to assist the client in expanding their worldviews and making their lives more satisfying by using self-experimentation and reason. Even if a client decides she wishes to forgo her volitional abilities and become a robot waiting for the command, we explore the likely consequences with the client. However, as long as the client is aware of the consequences of their actions, we support them. Here is an ethical dilemma we discussed in my early training: Do we help Al Capone become more self-actualized in his actions?
Decolonization therapy may well do this, not from Eastern Europe but from North America if pushing ideologies, whether anti-Capitalist or anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism in most cases, while pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist political pushes in an intended apolitical space is wrong. That is the root: “Psychology continues to be misused to push political agendas.” No specification of alignment or a re-stipulation of the foundational ethics of therapy: impartiality, or minimize bias and maximize neutrality.
From Theory to the Couch: Ethical Dilemmas
As the article surmises, the majority of Jewish people identify as Zionists and/or support Israel. On a personal note, I share the last name of the Founder of Reform Judaism, Israel Jacobson. However, I do not know if there is any family history or patrilineal or matrilineal relation. My family received an award for harbouring at least one Jewish couple for several years for safety and protection on the Dutch side during World War II. Do I get a cookie? No.
My biases: Let us say, for the sake of argument, the likely background of no family relation, I “identify” per contemporary, in vogue, verbiage, or “am” a “Zionist” in a manner of being a ‘Palestinist’–not an abnormal position in international documentation. I wrote a book project, out of In-Sight Publishing, of in-depth professional, expert-level interviews from 2019-2021 on precisely the subject matter of Israel-Palestine, entitled On Israel-Palestine: 2019-2021(2024).
Identity, Data, and the Risk of Erasure
Those State terms came from agreements following the Balfour Declaration. The vote for Palestine’s non-member observer State status on November 29, 2012, at the United Nations cemented this further within international voting records. UN Resolution A/RES/67/19 stipulated, “The General Assembly… Decide to accord Palestine non-member observer state status in the United Nations…”
It passed with 138 votes in favour, nine against, and 41 abstentions. Therefore, we have Palestine as a non-member observer State status of the UN, under observer state Status, on equal footing with the Holy See, as Israel is a Member State with voting privileges. At least, in either case, it could change, in theory.
However, it is so overwhelmingly supported by the international community for a State of Palestine under the Question of Palestine and for a State of Israel, simply unreasonable to put in the fore a question about the member state status of either. I denounce anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, and antisemitic bigotry. Many others do, too.
The fact that these become controversial stances, as generically positioned and further utilized to politicize a professionally intended vulnerable population and apolitical interpersonal professional space, raises serious questions under codes of ethics. Therapeutic spaces are intended as apolitical spaces for terms set by clients with therapists. To politicize them violates the premise, they are not complex considerations.
The symmetry fits structurally with Conversion Therapy in their positionality, but is disjunct in harm type and degree. Based on the article numbers, Zionism is something 85% of Jewish people support. However, based on other sources from the United States and in the United Kingdom, these may be inflated numbers, but not too much. Others range the numbers from 63% to 82% regarding caring about Zionism, with lesser strength in support, while still adhering.
As of 2020, UK data from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research state 73% of U.S. Jews feel emotionally attached to Israel, while 63% identify as Zionists, down from 72% a decade earlier. While Pew’s 2021 data show 82% of American Jews feel at least some attachment to Israel, while 48% under 30 feel “very” or “somewhat” attached to Israel, 51% of Jews 50 and older caring about Israel is essential to Jewish identity. Overall 2/3rds express some degree of connection to Israel. Attachment does not equate to support. Connection and care can mean Zionism to many. Therefore, most adhere to styles of Zionism or connection, care, and/or support for Israel.
Parallels and Hypotheticals
Similarly on issues of gender and sexual minorities, LGBTI+, using terminology via the UN with the LGBTI Core Group rather than narrowing within common American parlance, is an inherent identity of development. Gender and sexual orientation seem to flow outwards, akin to the development of a snowflake and a sociological category. It is not a position of necessary advocacy to proclaim: “I am a bisexual man.” It is fabulous and factual, but not a necessary point of advocacy in the manner of Zionism or argument around historicity or a claim to some biblically (mostly) unjustified narrative. On the other hand, antisemitism has been around for centuries. This can count as an early sprouting of it in a professional space.
Within a few decades, people’s lives targeted can be impacted. Conversion Therapywas established and systematized for decades prior to the 1990s controversies. Conversion Therapy, or reparative therapy, is a practice aimed at changing sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Peter Gajdics, the author of The Inheritance of Shame, was a victim. So, that case is different, not in spirit but in development. Eventually, I could see a symmetry if others were not critically inquiring into it and pushing back against it. It is critically confronted, not yet 2055 or 2065, either, so not enough room for decades of entrenchment.
So, we can at least step forward with a strong foot. This potato is too hot. Journalists do not want to cover this. To critique Israeli policy, “Hooray, stop the genocide!” and “You are an antisemite” To critique Hamas murders on October 7 and hostage-taking, and leftwing unwitting antisemitism, “Stop the clock on the Woke, you go, Mr.!” and “Deport the lunatic leftwing radicals and terrorists on our campuses!”
If they are on the Right sociopolitically, then they might be afraid of leftist harassment and cancellation tactics. If they are on the Left, then they do not want to become another Norman Finkelstein case, and fear some wings of the Israeli lobby and the American State. To the more significant point, though, while no mainstream therapy formally pathologizes Zionism, a framing as inherently oppressive without acknowledging its ethnic and religious dimensions risks veering into symbolic antisemitism. This could destabilize a client’s sense of safety and/or identity.
If they are like Mr. Huckabee and want a single super-state for apocalyptic Christian Zionism for the Second Coming of Christ, then that is a different story on hermeneutical antisemitism if that is their wheelhouse. One obvious thought experiment to me. Can we reverse this claim? Just forgetting any UN record, rights abuses by the Israeli state or the Palestinians against Israelis, etc., theoretically, one could assert the American far-right ethnic supremacist talking point about white genocide.
As a case in illustrative hyperbole, based on extreme viewpoints held in parts by many, “Looking at the mass immigration, look at the Kalergi-Coudenhove plan in action for the ‘Eurasian-Negroid race of the future,’ the Rothschilds own the moon, etc.; we are being colonized–watch out for the space lasers (TM) targeting the last of the pure Aryan Race.” These form a White ethnic American State idea.
They pose this: anyone criticizing or arguing against it is considered colonizing. We need to decolonize the therapy of anti-White Statism. It is a professional duty for those in our care to decolonize from anti-White State ideas. People would take offence at this. Why not the reverse? They could even have APA poster presentations pointing to the prefrontal cortex, vaguely identifying anti-White Statism as a mental illness needing a decolonization therapy style of approach as was done with Zionism.
Restoring Neutrality: Evidence and Safeguards
We risk undermining the neutrality and integrity of psychological practice, and are moving towards this more pervasively based on this. Jewish identity is multifaceted, is not a mental illness when linked to Zionism, and involves self-determination. Decolonization Therapy mostly lacks sufficient rigorous empirical support. However, it is grounded in cultural psychology and values ideology over evidence, while inverting its duty not to harm by retraumatizing some Jewish patients, alienating them further.
It does not have the same systematic and comprehensive empirical support as standardized therapeutic techniques, including Dialectical Behavioural Therapy. Therapists, thus, can buy into antisemitic tropes around genocide and fascist stereotypes, labelling Jewish clients as oppressors, politicize therapy with anti-Zionist ideologies, and make therapeutic spaces a place to intimidate others. I submit that if a social justice framework in therapy retraumatizes and alienates clientele, then there will be less social justice and more anti-social injustice frameworks for therapy.
Therapy as Sanctuary, Not Battleground
Dr. Jennifer Mullan, the Founder of Decolonizing Therapy, most succinctly stated, “There’s no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom,” or “To begin to consider and implement practices that support politicizing and shifting our organizational and interpersonal perspectives.”
To contrast, the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Fourth Edition), under Ethical Standards of Principle of Integrity in Relationships, stipulated the importance of the need “to be as objective and unbiased as possible in their… service.” The British Psychological Society in Code of Ethics and Conductlinked reason or rationality to impartiality. The International Union for Psychological Science in its Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists emphasized the fundamental Principle of Integrity specifying “maximizing impartiality and minimizing biases.” Finally, the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct emphasizes in its Principle C: Integrity the avoidance of deception and misrepresentation, which could extend to refraining from the use of therapy as a vehicle for partisan persuasion.
Therapy is meant as a sanctuary for clients’ own narratives. Ironically, this trend can come to risk repeating the colonization abuses of the past under the imposition of a ‘decolonization’ pretense. We need a reintegration of client autonomy and therapeutic neutrality; therapy is the client’s domain for autonomy premised on non-maleficence, not an ideological battleground. It may be helpful to further embed thorough mandatory neutrality training in licensure standards, so it doesn’t become an issue at scale.
Dr. Matt Zakreski emphasizes that neurodivergent individuals are not broken neurotypicals but uniquely wired people requiring tailored support. He contrasts Canada’s flexible, individualized approach with the U.S.’s rule-bound systems, underscoring the importance of equity—not uniformity—in education and development. Zakreski critiques the misuse of identity labels to avoid accountability and encourages adaptive support based on process, not perfection. He advocates for knowledge as empowerment, shifting from stigma to informed compassion. Emphasizing the role of stereotype threat, he calls for environments where authenticity can thrive. Children need flexible systems and high, compassionate standards to become grounded, resilient adults.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are neurodivergent people, not broken neurotypical people? What is the misunderstanding there in the public mind?
Dr. Matt Zakreski: There is a core misunderstanding that there is a “right” way to engage with the world. However, that is just not true. Some ways are easier or more widely accepted—but not inherently better.
Society is primarily built by and for neurotypical people. About 80% of the population is neurotypical. So, when you are neurodivergent, you often operate outside the default design. That does not mean you are wrong. However, it can tell youthat you are at odds with how others expect things to be done.
Those odds do not have to lead to conflict or isolation but can lead to friction. That is where support becomes crucial.
We need to help neurodivergent people understand the rules and how to engage with them in ways that feel most authentic and manageable for them. That is not the same as saying, “You need to change who you are.” It is more like, “Here are some skills that will help you navigate this moment.”
Once that moment has passed, if they want to return to their fully authentic selves, we honour that. The goal is adaptive functionality, not forced conformity.
Jacobsen: How do America and Canada differ in their approaches to supporting neurodivergent individuals as they develop from childhood through adolescence?
Zakreski: One of the things I have always respected about Canada is that Canadians seem more inclined to recognize and accommodate individual developmental journeys. I am a big hockey fan, so think about Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid—they are given that special dispensation to play in the juniors early. Why? Because they were ready.
Moreover, that is the essence of good neurodivergence support: finding the right-sized fit for the right kind of challenge. It is partly operational, but at its heart, it is philosophical. It is a commitment to honouring a person’s unique growth path and doing what it takes to help that path unfold.
In the U.S., we pride ourselves on rugged individuality but are also extremely rule-bound. I cannot tell you how often I have spoken with neurodivergent students in the U.S. who need something different—a more advanced math class or a different approach to writing—and the system says, “No. This is how we do it.”
In my experience with Canadian educators, especially those who work with neurodivergent kids, the attitude is often, “Let us see what we can do to meet this student’s needs.”
Moreover, that is a huge difference. Because if you are willing to think outside the box, you are automatically better positioned to serve “outside the box” kids.
Jacobsen: How do we prevent that from overextending into pandering?
Zakreski: That is such a great question. Are you familiar with the Yerkes–Dodson Law?
Zakreski: So here is the thing: almost every intervention I design is rooted in the idea behind the Yerkes–Dodson Law. The goal is to find the right level of stimulation or challenge—that “leading edge of learning,” as I call it.
When something is too easy, people disengage. When it is too hard, they shut down. However, you can achieve engagement, growth, and resilience if you hit that sweet spot.
So, no, giving kids the right opportunities is not pandering. We are not lowering expectations—we are calibrating the level of challenge. If we are targeting that optimal zone, we almost cannot pander to them. We are pushing them just enough to grow while still supporting them as they stretch.
If a kid says, “I am smarter—I need better math. Give me better math,” and we say, “Okay, let us do that,” then the kid struggles and cannot keep up, so we often remove them from that setting.
However, those services—those accommodations—should not be seen as badges of honour. They are not awards. It is not about prestige. It is a matter of equity.
Everyone should get what they need.
Gifted kids, neurodivergent kids—they are not better. They are different. Moreover, the goal is not to reward someone for being different. It is to right-size the challenge so that each student is in a place where they can grow and thrive.
Jacobsen: In practice—clinical practice, specifically—how do you “measure twice and cut once”? How do you assess and then tailor support accordingly?
Zakreski: You start with the person’s interests.
Let us say Sally is a high-level musician. I know music matters to her, so I begin by exploring music-based interventions. I asked her, “What does success in music look and feel like to you?”
Does it mean playing Carnegie Hall in New York City? Does it mean attending Juilliard? Does it mean becoming a tenured professor at McGill University in Montreal?
Jacobsen: That is right. You have your Canadian references in order.
Zakreski: Of course! I do this. I am ready for the quiz.
Jacobsen: Okay then—quiz time. Who said, “The medium is the message”?
Zakreski: That is Marshall McLuhan.
Jacobsen: Correct. 100 points. Gold star. What was Glenn Gould known for playing, and which composer was he most famous for interpreting?
Zakreski: Oof—I do not think I know that one. I will model my intellectual humility here and admit there is a gap.
Jacobsen: Gould was a classical pianist best known for his interpretations of Bach. When he visited the Soviet Union, people were so in awe of his technical and emotional mastery that they asked questions like, “Is it a machine? No—it is a man,” which echoed Superman-like mythologizing.
Zakreski: That is wild. I love it.
Jacobsen: Okay, let us pivot back. In clinical work, have you ever had a situation where a neurodivergent child shows their divergence in verbal reasoning or verbal ability, and you model something nonverbally—without explicitly stating that is what you are doing?
Zakreski: Yes, absolutely. There is a famous psychological study—I am 90% sure it came out of Yale. If needed, I can fact-check that. Malcolm Gladwell references it in his book Blink.
The core idea is that Western culture is exceptionally verbal. So, people with advanced verbal skills are often disproportionately elevated—socially, academically, and even professionally—compared to those with strengths in problem-solving, lateral thinking, or engineering/STEM domains.
So, when working with neurodivergent kids, especially those with expressive or receptive language challenges, I often model emotional regulation, problem-solving, or curiosity through nonverbal behaviour without paying attention. Over time, many kids pick up on this, integrate it, and reflect it in ways that match their cognitive style.
It is one of our most potent, quiet tools, especially when working with kids who process the world differently.
In this particular study, participants were put in a room where they had to solve a problem—one that was not immediately clear how to solve. Everyone received the same set of instructions, but what they found fascinating.
The verbal thinkers kept asking, “What else do I need to know? What information am I missing?” They assumed there was a verbal piece missing from the instructions. Meanwhile, when the facilitators either nonverbally modelled how to solve the problem or gave a sizable hint, the adaptive thinkers—those who could pivot between verbal and nonverbal reasoning—were able to adjust and solve the task.
However, the people locked into that single-channel verbal mode of thinking kept circling back to more questions and language. They were limited by the style they had grown comfortable with.
One of the core principles we try to model, especially with neurodivergent clients, is that process matters more than product.
I want people to learn how to sit with the discomfort of a challenge, wrestle with something difficult, and work their way through it. If you do that and get a lower grade, or you do not get the “correct” answer, but your method of approaching the problem is fundamentally sound—that is far more important and far more predictive of long-term success than simply repeating whatever strategy has always netted you a good grade.
I did not learn how to write good papers until university. In high school, I could throw many clever words on a page, make them sound smart, and get the grade—because my verbal IQ was in the 140s. I was not a good writer; I just sounded like one.
It was not until college that I had a professor—John Llewellyn, a fantastic guy who introduced me to Marshall McLuhan—pull me aside and say, “You think you are a good writer. You are not.”
Moreover, I said, “I know, sir. I just figured out how to do this in a way that worked in high school.”
He said, “Good. Now, I will teach you how to be a real writer.”
When I wrote my book last year, I thought about him constantly. Whenever I wanted to cut a corner or fall back into old habits, I heard his voice. Resisting those shortcuts made the book so much better. I am genuinely grateful for that lesson.
Jacobsen: We are in a cultural moment that feels like Identity Politics 2.0—sometimes referred to or criticized under the umbrella of “woke ideology.” Now, that framing gets messy because it has both upsides and downsides.
The benefit is obvious: it can help mobilize people for necessary, justice-oriented causes. The downside is the rise of what you might call “parade-based activism” rather than “work-based activism.” It is easy to confuse symbols for substance—for instance, thinking that wearing a rainbow pin is equivalent to marching with a friend at Pride or wearing a Christian cross is the same as participating meaningfully in someone’s confirmation journey.
There is a risk that these markers become proxies for actual support or understanding.
So my question is: Is there a risk that youth who receive a neurodivergent diagnosis might fall into that same trap—where the label becomes a shield, an excuse, or even a kind of performative identity that limits their accountability or growth when things go wrong?
Zakreski: That is a fundamental question. Moreover, for the record, I am always on the side of diagnosis—on the side of knowing yourself. I often say it is way better to know you are a zebra than to think you are just a weird horse.
Because our brains work this way: in the absence of external information, we make sense of things using the internal information we already have—which is, overwhelmingly, ourselves.
For example, I am colorblind, which is a form of neurodivergence. However, I did not know colorblindness existed until I was 11, so before that, I thought I was just dumb.
Everyone else could tell colours apart, but I could not. So my conclusion was, “I must be stupid.” I did not have the language or the framework to understand otherwise.
That is why diagnosis is helpful—not because it is the end of the journey, but because it is the beginning of a different journey.
I always say that the story does not end when Frodo gets the ring—it ends when Frodo gets to Mount Doom.
Diagnosis is not the conclusion. It is the starting point that guides how we move forward.
Think about it like this: if someone is diagnosed with high blood pressure, and their doctor gives them medication—but they do not change their diet, they keep eating fried food, keep drinking soda and alcohol—then the diagnosis alone is not going to fix anything.
In the same way, a neurodivergent diagnosis should be a North Star—a tool for gaining self-knowledge and orienting one’s environment and behaviours toward the best possible version of oneself.
Moreover, like I said earlier, Neurodivergence is always context—it is never an excuse.
Labelling a child as having ADHD can be very helpful. It might lead to educational accommodations, therapy, or medication. However, the mistake I often see parents make is that they stop there.
They will say something like, “My kid has ADHD, so of course they cannot help but cheat on a test—they are impulsive.”
Moreover, I respond respectfully but firmly: That is not how this works.
Yes, I will understand more about the impulsivity behind the behaviour. However, accountability still matters.
We do not eliminate expectations just because someone has a diagnostic—or, perhaps more appropriately in these contexts, an identity—label. We adapt the expectations and adjust how we deliver them, but we do not remove them.
You can’t just throw up your hands and say, “Well, they are neurodivergent, so they are off the hook.” That does a disservice to the child and the broader community.
Jacobsen: Do you ever have a situation in practice where someone uses their identity, or diagnostic status, to shield themselves from accountability—where it becomes a kind of shield?
Zakreski: Yes, and I will give you an example.
I work with a kid in my clinical practice who has gotten into some social trouble at school this year. He has genuine social communication challenges and is quick to yell or escalate when he feels cornered or misunderstood.
He also happens to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. And in one of our team meetings, he said, “They are picking on me because I am gay.” Moreover, because I have worked with him for a long time, and because I know him well and we have that rapport, I was able to say:
I told him, “You are being a jerk. You are a jerk who happens to be gay.”
It was direct, but it was said with care and with the understanding that his identity does not absolve him of how he treats others. The goal isn’t to weaponize labels—it is to understand them in ways that promote growth, self-awareness, and accountability.
We are not going to hide behind identity politics here. Accountability still matters.
Now—if people are being cruel because of his sexual orientation, if they are weaponizing his identity in some way—that is a very different conversation. That is not acceptable. However, people are allowed not to like you. That is part of life.
People are allowed to dislike others whether they are tall, short, fat, skinny, gay, straight, trans, ADHD, autistic, dyslexic, or whatever. We will not stand for the ad hominem version of those attacks.
Saying, “You are stupid because you have ADHD” or “ADHD people never amount to anything”—that is deeply harmful and entirely out of bounds.
However, saying, “Hey, I do not like you—you annoy me” is not the kindest thing you will ever hear, but it is not necessarily inappropriate. That is part of navigating human relationships.
Jacobsen: Speaking of niceness—and tilting that into politeness—do cultural stereotypes guide collective behaviour in any way?
For example, the stereotype of Canadians being polite or Americans being entrepreneurial but obnoxious. Do these, in your view, become self-fulfilling prophecies?
Zakreski: I think they do—very much so.
One of the most critical research areas here is the stereotype threat concept. The basic idea is: If I think you will see me a certain way, I will proactively change my behaviour to manage your expectations—even if it makes me less authentic or less effective.
I was recently in Europe for work—specifically in the Netherlands—and I do not speak much Dutch. I kept apologizing for not knowing the language because I did not want to be seen as the stereotypical “ugly American.”
However, that constant apologizing made me a less effective communicator. I was so worried about managing the perception that I was not focusing on the interaction.
You see this with kids all the time, too. I work with students who have ADHD, and they are so afraid of being seen as impulsive or scattered that they spend all of their energy trying not to appear that way.
In doing so, they do not learn anything.
If students need to fidget or doodle to stay engaged and learn, we should let them do it. If their environment allows them to be themselves without penalty, the stereotype threat drops dramatically, and their capacity for success increases just as dramatically.
Jacobsen: So, looking ahead—thinking about the remainder of the 2020s and into the 2030s—if we extrapolate lines of best fit from current clinical psychological data for kids aged 5 to 20, extending into young adulthood, what do young people in North America need to survive? Moreover—more importantly—what do they need to thrive as authentic, grounded individuals?
Zakreski: We need two things: flexibility and high standards.
But not rigid standards—high standards.
We need knowledge.
Moreover, knowledge is not just power—knowledge is empowerment.
When we understand that ADHD is a brain-based difference, we stop labelling kids as lazy, weird, or broken. We recognize that it is a neurobiological condition that affects executive functioning. Moreover, if we start from that foundation of knowledge, it becomes much easier to move toward compassion and practical support.
Another thing I always say is, “When the flower is not blooming, we do not blame the flower—we change the greenhouse.”
One of the most significant shifts in this post-COVID world is that more families finally say, “Okay. The greenhouse that worked for one of my children does not work for this one.”
So, they are now willing to create a different environment—a custom greenhouse—for the child who needs it.
That is why I strongly oppose this wave of anti-DEI backlash: Equity is not just a buzzword; it is a human need.
Everyone does better when they get what they need to thrive. Neurodivergent people are no exception.
Moreover, most of what we ask for—for these kids and families—are small, simple changes. We are not asking the world to reshape itself entirely. We are asking to be allowed to enter that world in ways aligned with our needs and dignity.
That is why I will always fight for my kids and clients—the cost of inaction is too high, and the solutions are often well within reach.
Jacobsen: This was a treat. Thank you so much for taking the time. I appreciate it.
Zakreski: I hope it was helpful for you as well. It was. Thank you for reaching out.
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: 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.?
When I was a teenager, because I was a difficult kid, I was kicked out of the house for a few months. I got to know, befriend, and like old people more than young people of my cohort. Now, I like mentoring the young, from time to time, and befriending the old, still more.
When I was a teen, also, I worked a bit in construction at a truss factory and in construction with my alcohol misusing father. There was an old man, named Nick: l call him, “Old Nick”—because I’ve always called him Old Nick—who mentored me. We worked side-by-side; or, rather, I worked by his side.
I helped him. I matched his pace. He taught me. I learned, not everything, from him. Construction sites are interesting. They’re dirty.
There’s gravel.
There’s wood.
There’s rebar, rubble, and concrete.
There’s plastic, hard and flowy soft, from packaging, strewn on the property.
There are ‘hard’ hats.
There are belts.
There are hammers, forklifts, cranes, scissor lifts.
There’re frames, concrete forms.
There’re alcoholics, substance misusers, or just drunks and junkies.
There’re regulars, part-timers, life restarters, newcomers, crusty master craftsman, and just plain old labourers and safety inspectors and formans.
Maybe, they show up on time. Maybe, they show up all day. Maybe, they work.
Maybe, they don’t, in each case.
Men, some, raised by the bottle and a back of a hand.
The type who verbally inverted and made an emotionally abusive introject.
Old Nick seemed to come out of this tradition. The idea being: Suck it up, hammer that nail, next.
Nick’s routine was simple: Smokes, banana at lunch, green tea, more smokes, go home.
His pace was slow.
His slow was methodical, like drying concrete. It just form-fit to the pace of that particular day.
I loved listening to his words. They were paced, respectful, tinged with embers of regret at times. A sort of “this is it” of sentiment. Then the smoke would rise from his lips.
He was divorced, estranged from his kids at the time. He had had a substance misuse problem, regarding alcohol. If he was of the time, and of that subculture, a hard life, he would be someone who drank beer, regular beer, whether a IPA or a darker like a Guinness.
Yet, when I met him, I could not tell such a thing happening in the past, certainly not in the present.
He was the ember. His skin cracked like embers rumbled.
I appreciated his mentorship at the time. The opportunity to work with him. Construction was hard, and worth it—though wasn’t great at it. We would talk about the work at hand, and then occasionally about other things.
I learn about the estrangement. I asked if he had any regrets. The body told the story he was unwilling to confront. I worked on and off with him for many months and on more than one worksite. I finished working in construction.
I moved onto other endeavours. It was increasingly a distant memory, but important to reflect upon as a life developmental stage. Everyone should do hard labour for a period of time in youth. If too late in life, then it’s unlikely to express the beneficial effects upon the core psyche.
They remain air people, only.
I’ve worked as a janitor, farm hand, ranch hand, dishwasher, food prepper, landscaper, gardener, busser, cashier, etc. All essential life lessons can be gathered from this. But life goes on. I’ve contemplated death in walks through cemetery in my old town as a child, as a teenager, as an adult. You get value in those lessons too.
Then I was at a funeral years later.
Who was there? Old Nick. I asked him. Something like this.
“How are you, old man?”
“Good, you?”
“Been better, a death, you know?”
“Sure, of course.”
[Innocent naughty jokes and banter.]
“Shhhh! Scotty… you’re not supposed to tell them!”
[Laughter, about to leave—passing recollection]
“Hey…Nick, did you ever reconcile?” (With his kids)
[Pause.]
“…yeah.”
He seemed to have lied. His body told the truth.
That’s a pity.
It’s life.
Eventually, rebar rusts, and concrete cracks, too.
So thanks, Nick—between banana, smokes, and embers—you gave some of what little you had, to me. Thank you.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/10
Roslyn Mould is the Vice President of Humanists International (2023-). She was Secretary and Chair of the Young Humanists International African Working Group from 2014 to 2019 and a Board Member for Humanists International from 2019 to 2023. She was a member of the Humanist Association of Ghana since it was founded in 2012 and held several positions, including President of the group from 2015 to 2019. She is the Coordinator for the West African Humanist Network, an Advisory Board member of the FoRB Leadership Network (UK), a Board member for LGBT+ Rights Ghana, and President of Accra Atheists. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Linguistics and Modern Languages.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you bridge the gap between humanists, liberal religious people, and traditionalists?
Roslyn Mould: Tolerance bridges the gap between religious and non-religious communities. Generally, humanists and non-religious people tend to be more open and inclusive, often adopting the attitude, “Let’s all get along; everyone has the right to their beliefs, and we accept that.” However, religious individuals are often less tolerant of differing perspectives, especially those who challenge their beliefs or are perceived as nonconformists.
Jacobsen: How do you feel about being in the company of people who resent your existence? How do you navigate interactions with those who reject your existence and build bridges with those who accept your existence and show essential tolerance?
Roslyn Mould: As president of the Humanist Association of Ghana, I aimed to promote humanism in a deeply religious society. We wanted to normalize atheism and secularism while collaborating with religious groups without making them feel threatened. Do you understand? For many religious people here, if you’re not aligned with their faith, you’re considered to be against God or even aligned with the devil. There is no gray area.
The challenge was how to normalize atheism and non-belief. We shared common ground with other organizations and NGOs, such as feminist and environmental groups, and found commonality with cultural groups. Whenever there were events related to art, music, or causes vital to humanists, we participated as a group, often wearing our Humanist Association of Ghana t-shirts.
For example, we attended environmental events like the March for Science and Women’s March. We made a concerted effort to show up in numbers, which piqued people’s curiosity. People would see us at these events, united around a common cause, and they would begin to wonder who we were.
People are at these events, whether for art or music, because they love those things. Over time, they would ask questions like, “Who are you? What is humanism?” When they realized that we were like-minded in our interests but didn’t share their religious beliefs, it helped them see us as more normalized. We weren’t witches or demonic figures because we were non-religious. By starting with what we had in common, rather than leading with our atheism, we made people more comfortable, which allowed for collaboration even after they learned that we were atheists or non-religious.
And even further, out of curiosity, they will invite us to upcoming or future events. Do you understand?
Jacobsen: Another essential part probably supersedes that—your response prompted this. How do you handle the laity who, in conversations, are influenced by elders with supernatural hate theologies? So, they see you as a demon, under Satan’s control, or even as a witch. These are not just accusations but genuine beliefs. People genuinely believe these things, as Dr. Leo Igwe’s research and activism have shown us.
Mould: Yes.
Jacobsen: How do you even overcome that barrier from regular people who happen to be immersed in those communities? They have so much invested in it.
Mould: That’s tricky—there’s no clear-cut formula to it. But you have to keep demonstrating through humanism. For example, the Humanist Association of Ghana adopted the motto “Good Without God,” right? The fact that we emphasize “good” shows that we aren’t people with evil intent. We try to highlight the positive aspects of humanism to show that we are not as frightening as they may think. However, many humanists in Ghana are still very much in hiding. Their parents, families, friends, and communities have no idea they’re non-religious. We’re still living in secrecy.
It’s not something we’re necessarily comfortable with. Very few of us are privileged enough to come out openly and use our real identities to speak about our atheism or non-religious beliefs. So, it’s a delicate situation. Years ago, when we worked with the Humanist Service Corps on anti-witchcraft issues, that was part of not only assisting victims of witchcraft accusations but also demonstrating that we don’t fear witchcraft because we don’t believe it’s real.
Secondly, we show that we are thoughtful and compassionate, which is why we, rather than religious groups, are the ones on the ground helping these victims. Religious people, instead, are often the ones condemning these vulnerable women. Do you understand?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Mould: We try to create as much awareness as possible that we can be good without God. We can live with a stance of reason and still be kind to people, contribute positively to society, and so on. We do this through our website, social media, and other platforms, trying to demonstrate that it’s possible to not believe in supernatural things and still be decent human beings. We are not witches, nor are we fearful.
However, much work still needs to be done because these beliefs have been entrenched for generations. It’s ingrained in our culture—witchcraft, the supernatural—it’s all tied into our worldview. Do you understand? So, it’s going to take time. You can’t untangle or unravel all of this in a single day. It’s a long process, and we are still on that journey. I wouldn’t say we have all the answers yet. We are still advising our members, who are still in hiding and fearful of being exposed.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Mould: So until you are financially independent and more comfortable coming out yourself, we advise our members to stay private because it could be dangerous if they were to come out. It isn’t easy. Another thing I’ve been doing is working with the African Center for Parliamentary Affairs. They collaborate with the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion and Belief.
They invite me to certain events where civil society organizations (CSOs), NGOs, and especially humanists can interact with parliamentarians, lawmakers, and legislators. We aim to help them understand why, in every decision they make in parliament, they must respect people’s right to freedom of religion and belief and avoid imposing their personal beliefs on all citizens. Not everyone believes the same as they do, or at all. Do you understand? So, there are ways we’re addressing these issues from the top.
We are engaging with leaders to make them aware of freedom of religion and belief issues, something they might have never questioned before. Many of them are just as unaware as the general public that some people do not believe in religion at all. Some leaders, even within the government, need to understand this fully. So, we need to educate them.
I’m glad to have received recognition from the African Center for Parliamentary Affairs (ACIPA), which invites me and other humanists to these events. This allows us to interact with legislators in a safe space to explain these issues and emphasize why they need to support freedom of religion and belief.
Jacobsen: Yes, that’s important. I want to be mindful of the time.
Mould: Right, of course.
Jacobsen: I’ll take this recording, Ros. Thank you for your time. I’ll get this to you soon. Is that cool?
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/08
Andrew Copsonwas appointed Chief Executive of Humanists UK in 2009, having previously been its Director of Education and Public Affairs. He is also the current President of Humanists International, a position he’s held since 2015.
He has represented the humanist movement extensively on television news on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky, as well as on programmes such as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, and The Big Questions. He has also appeared on radio on programmes from Today, Sunday, The World at One, The Last Word, and Beyond Belief on the BBC, to local and national commercial radio stations.
Andrew served for many years as a director and trustee of the Religious Education Council, the Values Education Council, and the National Council for Faiths and Beliefs in Further Education, and the European Humanist Federation. and has advised on humanism for a range of public bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority, the Department for Education, the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, and the Office for National Statistics. He was a member of the Advisory Group for the Humanist Library at London’s Conway Hall and, in a previous post in the office of Lord Macdonald of Tradeston in the House of Lords, he provided the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG).
Andrew was educated at Balliol College in the University of Oxford, where he read Classics and graduated with a first in Ancient and Modern History. He was a member of the winning team of the 2005 Young Educational Thinker of the Year Programme and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute and of the Royal Society of Arts, and an Associate of the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University.
opson discusses public criticisms, including being labeled “debauched” and receiving hate mail. He reflect son Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore, emphasizing themes of harmony, diversity, and LGBTQ+ rights. Copson highlights Singapore’s social harmony, state control, and cautious approach to progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are back for the nth time with Andrew Copson from Humanists UK and Humanists International. We are part of the crew often described as the most “debauched” people on British soil. Before we begin, there’s a question I’d like to ask. What abuses or ad hominems have you received on national or public television based on your experience?
Andrew Copson: I know everyone is familiar with this. You’re referring to the most well-known one, about having a ‘first-class ticket to debauchery,’ right? Satanism and debauchery.
Jacobsen: Correct, that’s right.
Copson: A rather eccentric man said that almost a decade ago. He was wearing a rather flashy jacket.
Copson: Apart from his peculiar accusations, he was a nice man.
Copson: Yes, very well-kept. But there we are. Obviously, he wasn’t on the same page as us. You often get these kinds of comments about evil, lack of morality, Satanism, and so on. Then there are the emails about going to hell and burning forever. The most creative and chilling one I received was from someone who said, ‘I pity you for when, one second after your death, you open your eyes and realize where you are and what’s happened.’ I thought, ‘Oh, that’s chilling.’
It’s evocative, that idea. That one probably came the closest to sending a chill down my spine. Then, when discussing topics like abortion or assisted dying, which is a debate we’re now starting to have in earnest in the UK due to a new bill, I’ve been called a ‘murderer,’ ‘trying to kill old people,’ ‘eugenicist,’ and other such terms. Typically, the nastiest abuse comes from Catholics, or at least people who identify themselves as Catholics. It seems to be the case.
Honestly, I mostly ignore it after all this time. Unless it’s particularly inventive or memorable, like the one about opening your eyes one second after death, I don’t pay much attention. That was clever targeting, making you think more than the usual attacks. But most of it is rather boring.
Jacobsen: Richard Dawkins has had much fun reading his hate mail.
Copson: It’s just par for the course for me. The spelling and grammar could be better, too. I’m afraid the messages are rarely well-crafted in literary terms.
Jacobsen: Yes, the spelling is usually off. It’s not like receiving correspondence from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Copson: No, definitely not. Rowan Williams could write a better screed. It’s strange. I would never dream of randomly emailing Christians to say, ‘You idiot, why do you believe these absurd things?’ or ‘Why are you ruining everyone’s lives with your anti-gay rhetoric?’ It’s an odd thing to do, but I suppose some people have nothing better to do.
Jacobsen: The individual on national television, where you were with Douglas Murray who had his eyebrows practically going to the back of his head when those comments were made. If I remember the video correctly, at the time of seeing it, I recall the term ‘debauched.’ It struck me as such a British way of putting someone down—it’s ‘debauched.’
Copson: It does sound like a rather nice word. It has an old-fashioned feel to it. It sounds like Henry VIII, leaning back with a joint of venison and a big pot of something, going, ‘Oh, ho, ho.’ It creates quite a happy image—debauchery.
Jacobsen: But that’s not the intention. It sounds like you’re participating in bacchanalia. It sounds like you’re at the head of it—enthusiastic.
Copson: That’s right. And all this, early on a Sunday morning!
Jacobsen: I don’t know what was happening in his imagination—a Sunday morning!
Copson: Yes, it was early on a Sunday morning when that show was on. That show has since been cancelled. That’s a shame because it was the show where, if you did it, you’d walk around town later that same Sunday and people would come up to you and say, ‘Oh, I saw you this morning!’ It had many viewers. Nicky Campbell was the presenter. Of course, he was good at bringing out the eccentricities in people, which made for good television. But now it’s been cancelled, and there’s a much more sedate program on BBC One in that religion and ethics slot on Sunday mornings, which is sometimes more illuminating but far less watched.
Jacobsen: It’s edifying, like National Geographic, but less fun.
Copson: No, it’s not as fun. It could be more fun. With The Big Questions—that was the show’s name—you had to go with it. You had to roll with it and enjoy yourself.
Jacobsen: I used to watch clips of it, and I found it very entertaining.
Copson: People still do. People still watch it. They’ll come up to you at conferences or events, even if you’re there for something entirely different, and say, ‘First-class ticket to debauchery!’ Or they’ll say, ‘Oh yeah, I was watching a clip on YouTube of an old discussion about assisted dying. It was so good on that program.’ So, it remains popular.
They’d love to revive it. It was good TV. But aren’t we here to talk about the Humanists International General Assembly in Singapore?
Jacobsen: This is all a fun preamble, but we’re here for the Humanists International Singapore General Assembly 2024.
Copson: Where there was no debauchery.
Jacobsen: What was the importance of discussing intricate harmony thematically at this General Assembly?
Copson: Yes. But first, I’d like to say how glad I am that we went to Singapore and how important it was. At the General Assembly the year before, in 2023, in Copenhagen, one or two representatives from the Global North objected to us going to Singapore, saying it’s a country with restrictive policies.
Jacobsen: I remember that.
Copson: Restrictive in free speech, restrictive in civil liberties, and the argument was that we shouldn’t go. Humanists International should refrain from holding its General Assembly in countries where this is the case. At the time, I thought that was a rather strange argument because if humanist organizations in countries face significant challenges regarding democratic rights and freedoms, it seems that’s precisely where we should go to support them in their contexts. First, they likely need help to travel to other places. Secondly, we should be on the ground where conditions are difficult.
I found it odd that there was the idea that we should boycott countries less hospitable to humanists and freedom. It turned out to be the right decision because when we were in Singapore, it was the first time we had been there. The Singaporean humanists were delighted to have us. The General Assembly can sometimes be a burden and a pleasure for host organizations because it’s expensive and requires much organization. But it was absolutely clear that they were thrilled to have us there. It was a great opportunity for them to showcase what Singaporean humanists had been doing and to meet others on their home ground. Not all Singaporean humanists can travel to other General Assemblies.
So, having the chance to encounter humanists from around the world in their own country benefited them. Another reason why it turned out to be such a good idea was that, for the first time, humanists from the wider region attended. We admitted Humanists Malaysia and a Humanist Association from Indonesia as members of Humanists International for the first time in Singapore. The people from those countries could attend the General Assembly because it was in their backyard.
I’m not saying Humanist Malaysia and the Humanist Association of Indonesia would never have joined Humanists International had we not gone to Singapore. Still, it’s not a coincidence that they formed their organizations and joined in the year we were in Singapore.
Having met the people involved, I’m confident this will significantly stimulate regional humanism. I’m glad we went. It was a wonderful experience in Singapore. We had fantastic hosts, which benefited humanism in the wider region.
Now, about interfaith harmony, or harmony between people of different religions or beliefs. You may be familiar with Singapore and its unique national culture, but it is historically artificial. It was essentially created by immigration. It’s filled with people who have either recently arrived or whose ancestors arrived relatively recently. As a result, it’s extremely diverse, both ethnically and religiously. I’m right in saying that the largest religious identity is Buddhist, but even that’s only about 35%.
And then you’ve got 21% with no religion, which, of course, includes all the humanists, 18% Christian, 18% Muslim, and so on through the smaller religions as well—Hindus and others. That situation, where every religion or belief group is a minority, creates a unique, if not unusual, social environment. Even though there’s a larger group, like the Buddhists, no one holds a majority. In this context of hyper-diversity, where everyone is a minority, harmony between people of different religions becomes incredibly important, especially in a place like Singapore, where everyone shares a relatively small, densely populated territory.
That means there was something real to discuss and learn from in Singapore on the theme of harmony, which felt very specific, if not unique, to that place. That’s why they chose the theme, and it worked well. Another reason why they selected the theme is because it’s one of the few topics they could discuss openly. Although the person at the General Assembly in Copenhagen was wrong about whether or not we should go to Singapore and overstated the lack of freedom there, Singapore is not a fully free country. There are significant restrictions on what you can and can’t say.
For instance, it’s illegal to criticize someone’s religion or belief, and it’s also illegal to attempt to convert someone from their religion. As far as I could tell, the groups that object to these laws are mainly Christians and Muslims. It’s not the humanists, Buddhists, or Hindus who have a problem with them. Nonetheless, these restrictions did constrain the kinds of topics we could discuss. Harmony, therefore, became an important and fitting theme. When we arrived, or at least many of us didn’t, we learned that harmony is not just an idea dreamt up by Singaporean humanists but an official national doctrine.
For example, we visited the government’s Harmony and Diversity Gallery, and it became clear that the government strongly promoted harmony.
Jacobsen: How debauched of you?
Copson: How harmonious. It was fascinating. One of the discussions many of us from the Global North, or more, let’s say, civically riotous places, had was about how much freedom you would give up to enjoy life as good as the one people have in Singapore.
Of course, it’s clean. There’s little crime. Everywhere we went, we felt safe. At some point during the trip, we humanists talked seriously about the balance between liberty and security—how much freedom you would sacrifice to ensure more security and vice versa. I thought that was quite an engaging discussion.
Jacobsen: What about the presentation on deradicalization? That seemed to come up in discussions I had with people—how interesting their approach was to combating extremism at the individual level, working with communities.
Copson: I, unfortunately, went on the other tour, so I missed that presentation. I wish I had seen it, as we had to choose between different sessions. I went on a walk to see different religious buildings coexisting peacefully. Then we went to the government’s Harmony and Diversity Gallery, where we watched a video about how awful the world was—except for Singapore, where everyone lives in harmony. So, I missed the tour you’re referring to.
It did sound extremely interesting. You probably know as much about it as I do, given that we both talked to people who attended the session, but it’s certainly an approach. Interestingly, the Singaporean government is committed to controlling certain aspects of their citizens’ identities and attitudes.
They have no hesitation about enforcing a doctrine of tolerance and harmony through state coercion. Many people, especially in Western countries, tend to get uncomfortable with this, especially as those countries become more diverse. It’s quite common for Western liberals to object to the idea of national values being compulsory. In Britain, for example, plenty of liberal people aren’t comfortable with the idea of “British values” being enshrined in the education curriculum or made a feature of national life. But there was no such uneasiness in Singapore, and certainly none from the Singaporean humanists, as far as I could tell. They seemed entirely supportive of this approach.
That’s an interesting distinction. It’s made easier by the fact that Singapore is legally a secular state. One of the interesting things in the Harmony and Diversity Gallery was how much they celebrated the secularity of the state, holding it up as the key to creating harmony among the diverse religious and ethnic groups in Singapore. I suppose that would make it more comfortable for many humanists because, of course, the idea of a secular state promoting civic values—values that must be shared in a political community—is one we can get behind. Even if you don’t believe them, you must behave according to them. No state can control what’s in your heart, after all. That was its saving grace, in a way.
Jacobsen: So, you visited the various religious buildings and galleries next to each other. What were other personal highlights for you on this particular trip?
Copson: Well, I did enjoy visiting the places. It was interesting to observe the various religious buildings coexisting in the same space and the shared altars used by different groups on different days. When we arrived, one altar was set up for a Buddhist festival. The next day, it was redone for a Hindu festival.
That was fascinating—the shared spaces didn’t seem to have any visible antagonism. But it was interesting to notice the small things that were, to some extent, engineered and, to another extent, a matter of social choice. For example, big food courts in Singapore are based on hawker markets or street food markets. Everywhere you go, there are these spaces with at least four counters.
One counter serves Halal Malay cuisine, another Han Chinese cuisine, etc. You have all these different cuisines, but the tables are all shared food-hall style. It’s another way of ensuring harmony and diversity: all the food is available, but everyone sits together. The tables are communal.
Once you start looking at Singaporean society from that perspective, you see this unity engineering everywhere. One of our guides explained that even the housing system is organized this way. Most of the housing is ultimately owned by the government but is offered on long leaseholds. That’s different from a legal concept that is familiar to you.
Jacobsen: Still, it probably comes from English law—inevitably, since Lee Kuan Yew was educated in Britain.
Copson: Right. That makes sense. So, they have high owner-occupancy rates because of these 99-year leases, or similar, which give people the feeling of owning their homes. But ultimately, the government owns the properties. The government also ensures social mixing in its housing, so you can’t have blocks where everyone is Han Chinese or blocks where everyone is Tamil, for instance. The more you learned about this approach, the more interesting it became across society. I found that particularly compelling.
There was another particularly interesting moment because many Westerners think Singapore has a big problem with homophobia, given that they only decriminalized male homosexuality two years ago. Even though there had been no prosecutions for decades before that, it was still an unenforced law. Nevertheless, when we had the opportunity to question some representatives of the Singaporean authorities, one of the Italian humanists asked about LGBTQ+ issues: “You say your country is tolerant and harmonious. What about LGBTQ+ rights?”
The official responded by acknowledging that, yes, they had only recently decriminalized male homosexuality, while female homosexuality had never been illegal. And then he said two more things that were quite interesting.
The first thing he mentioned was that Singapore is the only safe place in the region where two men can walk down the street holding hands, visit gay bars, or display a rainbow flag without fear of being assaulted. If you cross the land bridge to Malaysia or take the ferry to Indonesia, that’s not the case. You won’t be able to live your life with that same sense of safety. I thought that was an interesting point, a reminder to those of us who might have taken a more high-handed or imperious attitude toward civil rights and freedoms, especially in that region. While not perfect, Singapore is relatively good for LGBTQ+ people and, similarly, for women. I’m sure Singapore has its issues with gender inequality, but again, in relative terms, compared to neighbouring countries, they are doing much better—much freer and more tolerant. That was a bit of a “check your Western privilege” moment.
The second interesting point he made about LGBTQ+ issues, in response to the question, was why Singapore hasn’t legalized same-sex marriage or partnerships yet. His answer was thought-provoking. He said that while he believed it would happen, Singaporeans prefer to make social progress consensually. He thought that same-sex marriage would come along once enough people had been persuaded, allowing the change to happen without causing civic or social disruption, disharmony, or disunity.
So, even in that context, the theme of harmony and social unity was central. It’s similar to the balance between liberty and security—there’s a balance between freedom and cohesion. To see a society that has taken a slightly different path or is on a different trajectory regarding that balance was striking. It was an interesting place to be.
Jacobsen: They seem to be following a reverse path of development—becoming wealthy and well-educated first and then allowing, as you said, consensual permissions and acceptance of various freedoms.
Copson: That’s right. How will that proceed from here? Presumably, like everywhere, they face threats. They consider themselves under threat to some extent from Islamic extremism. They’ve got this deradicalization program in place.
Jacobsen: Lee Kuan Yew noted this when Singapore was first being formed. He observed that some individuals who once practiced their faith more casually had become more stringent in their observance of Islam. Before he passed, he remarked that things had tightened up in certain cases, suggesting a need to loosen up again. That may be a concern for them moving forward. That might explain the emphasis on having an Islamic deradicalization speaker.
Copson: They also mentioned that they recently banned a Bangladeshi preacher, known for his extreme views, who had managed to sneak into the country, give a secret talk, and then leave before they could act. Maintaining cohesion, especially about extremism, is a primary concern for them.
That’s interesting. What is happening in Malaysia has profoundly affected Singapore, and Malaysia recently took a more extreme turn. I don’t know how things stand now, but there’s been some back-and-forth. Nevertheless, there’s a radicalization problem in the region. So, it’s understandable why Singapore is cautious about these issues.
Jacobsen: Did you mention who gave the keynote again?
Copson: Well, there was no keynote. Instead, there were two panels with local experts. It was all policy-intensive, focusing on harmony and events in Malaysia and Singapore. I got the impression that’s probably what conferences are like there—no controversy, very focused.
Jacobsen: What aspects of harmony or interfaith dialogue were educational for you, especially in contrast to how things are handled in the UK?
Copson: I wouldn’t say the approach was significantly different. The main difference was the context. In Singapore, both Muslims and Christians are minorities, and even combined, they’re still a minority in the country. So, as far as I recall, it was interesting to hear from Muslim speakers, especially since there were no Christian speakers. The Muslim speakers had formed strong relationships with the humanist representatives in Singapore. Listening to their experiences as a minority in a country with the largest religion, Chinese Buddhism, was fascinating. They have a much more cosmopolitan attitude as a result of this context.
However, in methodological terms, I didn’t notice any significant differences between how things are handled in the UK and Singapore. The big, overwhelming difference is that the state in Singapore keeps a close eye on everything and has an official ideology of harmony. This is common in the wider region. Indonesia, for example, has its own version of a harmonious ideology, though it expresses it through its concept of Pancasila. Pancasila is a national philosophy?
In Indonesia, Pancasila is a philosophy where you can belong to any prescribed religion, but you can’t be non-religious. You must adhere to one of the accepted religions yet still be seen as part of this national ideology of ‘One God, One Country,’ and all the rest of it. So it’s common in the region for states to aspire to some level of control over doctrine for everyone within their borders. I used Pancasila as an example of state multiculturalism in my book on secularism a few years ago.
Jacobsen: Was that the one you did with Alice Roberts?
Copson: No, no. This was the Short Introduction to Secularism. It’s about political secularism. I used Indonesia as an example of the kind of arrangement that the Dutch and Belgians used to have—and to some extent still do—this official state multiculturalism where certain religions or beliefs are recognized. In Belgium and the Netherlands, that includes humanists. It doesn’t in Indonesia, but it’s a popular alternative to full secularism.
Ultimately, it’s unsuccessful because you still constrain people’s choices, even if you allow several religions or beliefs to be official. It might be better than having a single-state church, but you’re still circumscribing people’s choices. What happens when a new religion emerges? What happens when humanists in Indonesia try to organize, or Buddhists in Belgium try to organize? They can’t gain entry into this officially multiculturalist system. Nonetheless, it’s an interesting way for governments to try to mediate religious diversity.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or perhaps debauched feelings?
Copson: I shan’t give voice to my debauched feelings! As for thoughts, this might be the last time we speak for a while because I’ve only got eight months left as president. We’ll have to speak again in Luxembourg at my last General Assembly. Then I can tell you what the last ten years have been like. That’ll be an interesting reflection.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/09
Chad Towner is the Chief Revenue Officer at Freedom Forever, a leading company in the residential solar energy industry based in Temecula, California. With over a decade of experience in sales and leadership, Chad has been instrumental in driving significant growth and breaking sales records. Chad holds a Bachelor of Science in Aviation Science from Utah Valley University and is a licensed private pilot. Bilingual in English and Spanish, he is passionate about attracting ethical sales talent and advancing renewable energy solutions. Outside of work, he is actively involved in church service and enjoys taking his sailboat out on the water with his family.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Chad Towner, the Chief Revenue Officer of Freedom Forever, a leading residential solar installer partnering with the Los Angeles Rams. First question: Why partner with the Rams?
Chad Towner: A couple of reasons. First, Southern California. Freedom Forever was born here. We love the NFL and football, and the Rams are the premier NFL team in Southern California. We love SoFi Stadium; it is an incredible venue for entertainment. Their team was very collaborative when we reached out, so, it just made sense.
Jacobsen: Regarding solar energy, why focus on solar in this partnership with the Rams?
Towner: There is no national brand in the solar space; only 4% of U.S. homes have solar panels on their rooftops. We are growing into the role of the largest residential solar installer in the U.S., but unless someone is familiar with the solar industry, they probably have not heard of us. We felt that now was the right time to make our name known nationwide. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the U.S., and by associating ourselves with a premier team like the Rams, who won Super Bowl LVI, we hope to establish ourselves as the national brand. In our opinion, that kind of recognition does not currently exist in the solar industry.
Jacobsen: How do you see this partnership advancing sustainable energy goals? Many people support or work toward sustainability, but Freedom Forever is actually on the ground, implementing these changes. Does partnering with a major sports team expand your brand and increase awareness and adoption of sustainable energy?
Towner: Absolutely. The number one reason solar has only achieved 4% market penetration is that most customers don’t understand how solar works. Whenever we explain it to a potential customer, a light bulb goes off, and they ask, “Why doesn’t everyone do this?” The reality is that everyone should, but most people don’t know enough about it. Solar is still new to many, and it’s not something they’re familiar with. By getting our brand out there and becoming more widely known, we’ll build trust with customers and help them realize that solar is something they should learn about. Solar energy is coming to every market and every state, and it’s something everyone should consider—it’s the future. So, you had minutes, data, rate plans, and rollover plans for cell phones, but nobody grasped this new thing early on. It wasn’t until it reached a critical mass that people started adopting it. It was a slow start in the early days of cell phones. Similarly, solar needs to reach critical mass, and someone must start waving the flag.
Jacobsen: You’re launching at the beginning of the upcoming sports season. Why the beginning rather than the end or the middle of the season?
Towner: Well, one of the benefits of this partnership, for example, is that we have signage throughout SoFi Stadium, but we’re also inviting top sales leaders from other industries to join us at games. We want them to experience the Rams House with us. Hopefully, we’ll entice them to work with us and join the cause of accelerating residential solar adoption across the U.S., which is part of our growth strategy.
The more games we can bring people to, the more we can show them how we do things differently and better. We believe the faster we can grow, the better. For us, it’s a race against the clock. I’m not a scientist, but we don’t know how long the damage we’re doing to our climate will last or if it’s too late. But we need to do everything we can to accelerate the rate of residential solar adoption, and we believe we’re the only company with the business model to make that happen.
Jacobsen: How did you secure a multiyear rather than a one-year deal with an option for renewal?
Towner: That was mutual. Both sides wanted a multiyear deal, which was a relatively easy decision. Our partners—vendors and everyone we work with—are part of long-term, deeper partnerships. We’re trying to build a sustainable business that will last for decades. You can’t do that by reinventing your business every year; it requires stable, long-term partnerships.
Jacobsen: How does the distribution of signage, logo placement, and branding work throughout the Rams games to benefit both Freedom Forever and the Rams’ brand?
Towner: We may not get phone calls directly from fans in the stadium saying, “Hey, I saw your sign and want solar,” but it builds credibility. When a sales rep is in someone’s home explaining how solar works, and they mention, “By the way, we’re the company partnered with the Rams,” it adds a layer of trust. The customer might say, “Oh yeah, I saw your signs at the game.”
Solar is still a relatively new and growing industry, but it’s the future. It’s similar to the transition from kerosene lamps to electricity 100 years ago. What we need now is credibility. Customers need to feel confident that these are real companies that will take care of them for years to come. They don’t want to get solar panels installed only to never hear from their installer again. Our business model is long-term service and support. By showing that we have established deep partnerships with reputable brands like the Rams, we believe it gives customers the credibility and confidence they want, something they might not find with competitors.
Jacobsen: Based on the company’s forecasting of your business model and the solar energy market, if it’s only at 4% penetration now, what do you project the market penetration to be by, say, 2030? Can you provide any short- to medium-term estimates?
Towner: The trajectory has been challenging lately. It’s been a rough 18 months in the solar industry, largely due to macro conditions with the finance markets. Interest rate increases have significantly impacted residential solar, but at Freedom Forever, we are still growing. We’re on track to generate roughly $2 billion in revenue this year. While I don’t want to give you specific percentages, I can tell you that the first 4% will have been the slowest. What we’ve built so far can scale exponentially, and growth will accelerate.
As we grow, solar installation costs decrease due to economies of scale. This allows us to save customers money in markets where it was previously cheaper to stick with their existing utility. Because our costs have dropped, we can enter those markets and say, “Hey, we can save you money now—our rates are lower than your current electric bill.”
California is much further ahead in terms of solar adoption than most states. The key breakthrough in California happened when solar became cheaper than existing utilities, and adoption took off. However, we’re still behind other regions. Europe, Australia, and even Germany is far ahead of us regarding solar adoption. So, it can happen very quickly.
Jacobsen: Given this multiyear partnership with the Rams, are you restricted from partnering with other teams in the future?
Towner: I don’t believe so. Interestingly, the day the press release went out, I got emails from several other sports teams. I wasn’t expecting that level of interest, but there was clear demand. Whether it’s the solar aspect or teams looking for new advertising partners or sponsors, this will likely not be our last partnership. I’ll put it that way. It’s going incredibly well and has far exceeded our expectations.
Jacobsen: Personal question—no pressure to answer—were you a Rams fan before? Or are you a bigger Rams fan now?
Towner: I didn’t grow up here, so I had to be converted, but it’s been an easy process. The team, the organization—they’re incredible. I’ve been in Southern California long enough to call myself a local, so it was a natural transition. My kids are Rams fans, and they know no other team.
Jacobsen: From which team or sport did you have to convert?
Towner: I grew up in Denver, Colorado, so you can put that together, but it feels good to be a Rams fan now.
Jacobsen: Chad, thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/08
Autumn Breonis a multidisciplinary artist who investigates the visual vocabulary of liberation through a queer Black feminist lens. Using performance, sculpture, and public installation, Breon invites audiences to examine intersectional identities and Diasporic memory. Breon imagines her work as immersive invitations for the public to join in the reimagining and creation of systems that make current oppressive systems obsolete. Breon has created commissions for Target, Art Production Fund, Frieze Art Fair, and the ACLU of Southern California. Breon’s performance history includes Hauser & Wirth, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, and the Water Mill Center. She is an alumna of Stanford University where she studied Aeronautics & Astronautics and researched aeronautical astrobiology applications. Breon is a recipient of the Crenshaw Dairy Mart Fellowship for Abolition & the Advancement of the Creative Economy and the Race Forward Fellowship for Housing, Land, and Justice.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Autumn Breon, a recommendation from Martha Dimitratou. Thank you, Martha. I received an email about an event happening outside, somewhat affiliated but not directly connected to the UNGA, the 79th General Assembly. How did you hear about it, and have you been involved in it in previous years?
Autumn Breon: Yes, I’m familiar with the UN General Assembly through my work with Repro Uncensored and Plan C. I’ve collaborated with them for a while, and they’ve supported much of my artwork, especially the Care Machine, a travelling vending machine that dispenses objects related to care, free of charge. The founders of Feminist Collage, Martha from Plan C, Repro Uncensored, and I, came together to think about a unique way to engage with care during the UNGA. That’s how Care in Action came about.
Jacobsen: On a personal level, you seem to have a long history of activism, especially related to feminist issues, reproductive rights, and abortion access. Do you deeply commit to activism, particularly focusing on the impact on American women in recent years?
Breon: Yes. One of my projects travelling around the U.S. this year is called the Care Machine. It’s a retrofitted hot pink vending machine, with everything inside available for free. It moves around the country, offering abortion pill resources, emergency contraception, edge control, lip gloss, candy, condoms, pads, tampons—everything for free. The concept is based on asking Black women what items represent care to them. It’s a physical intervention in public spaces to highlight the different forms of care and emphasize that they should all be accessible.
Jacobsen: From your surveys of Black women in the U.S., are specific items considered more primary than others?
Breon: What’s important about how the items are presented in the vending machine is that they are all primary and essential. We started with basics—pads, tampons, abortion pill resources, condoms, lip gloss—and have expanded as we travel, adding items like Narcan, which has been very popular in different cities. I’m glad to see people taking it. The key idea here is that care isn’t just about caring for yourself—it’s about caring for your community. People often take Narcan not for themselves but because they know it might be useful in certain situations.
Jacobsen: From a practical standpoint, are there challenges in scaling up the Care Machine? You’re offering primary and essential products to select demographics in the U.S., but do you see any barriers to systematizing and expanding the initiative?
Breon: Scaling is the next challenge I’d like to tackle with this project. Right now, the vending machine serves as a reminder of what should be available everywhere, all the time. It’s an intervention to show what our systems should provide and something we need to mobilize and organize around. Eventually, I’d love to scale it up and make the items more widely available. But for now, it’s about raising awareness and reminding people that care should be accessible to everyone.
Jacobsen: Are there any national systems, particularly in health care or pharma care in other countries, that you believe offer valuable insights?
Breon: Yes. Any country with universal health care. That’s the reality we should have here in the U.S., but until we achieve that, we rely on mutual aid and systems that communities have built. We need to create those systems to make the current healthcare system obsolete.
Jacobsen: What are some core reasons for the opposition to providing basic reproductive health care, even from an economic perspective, considering the cost-saving benefits for the general public?
Breon: Reproductive freedom has been stigmatized—that’s the primary reason. And this stigma is relatively recent. It’s part of what makes this situation so frustrating. Historically, doulas and midwives didn’t just deliver babies; they also provided abortion care. Abortion wasn’t always illegal or stigmatized. It’s become a political issue because of that stigma. If we returned to the understanding that every person should have access to this care, it wouldn’t be such a stigmatized issue, and lives wouldn’t be lost.
Jacobsen: I recall Human Rights Watch having a straightforward webpage on this issue. The text might only span two or three pages in a Word document, but it’s very clear. “…equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right,” and I believe that’s a direct quote. Why is the U.S. context politicizing equitable access to what should be a basic human right in reproductive care beyond just the stigma?
Breon: Stigma is the root cause, but it’s hard for me to speak for those who see this as an issue because I don’t. However, I would say it’s primarily stigma and the cost. The idea of socialism scares some Americans—the concept that something could be free and accessible to everyone. There’s also a serious lack of information about how abortions work and the different ways to access reproductive health. That lack of knowledge is a big factor in this issue.
Jacobsen: Is there any access to relevant information on reproductive health in high school education in the U.S.?
Breon: It depends on where you go to school. In some places, you might have a sex ed class in public school, but what that entails varies by state—what’s legal and permissible in that state. Private schools have more autonomy, but in religious private schools, you might only be taught abstinence, or there may be no sex education class at all. On the other hand, a progressive private school might offer much more accurate information about reproductive health. The problem is that there are so many variables, and young people leave school systems with vastly different levels of knowledge about reproductive health. That’s why interventions like the ones we’re working on are so crucial. Instead of relying on existing systems, including the education system, we’re creating alternative ways for people to access the information they need. We’ve been doing that for a while now.
The Jane Collective is a prime example. That’s how people seeking abortions were able to learn how to access them when abortion was illegal. It was a group of women who came together, some even learning how to perform abortions themselves, and they created their own transportation and information networks to get that knowledge to those who needed it. We’ve done this before and must keep doing it until the systems catch up. I believe they eventually will.
Jacobsen: What about the vocabulary used when discussing these topics in public? Are there certain concepts that aren’t being communicated straightforwardly? Is there language being used that high school students, post-secondary students, or ordinary Americans working non-academic, blue-collar jobs might not immediately understand? And does that affect their ability to use this information to access services where they are?
Breon: Some resources offer straightforward access where your education level isn’t a barrier. For example, Plan C Pills has a simple digital platform where you can enter your location and find out how to get abortion pills by mail, wherever you are in the U.S. But the real challenge I’ve seen, and the reason I use art and objects like the Care Machine, is that many people don’t even know abortion pills exist. So, while there are resources, there are still significant barriers once people have some information.
Jacobsen: What about financial barriers?
Breon: Yes, that’s a huge problem. Not everyone has health insurance. That’s why clinics and mutual aid networks exist to help. And that’s also why everything in the Care Machine is free.
Jacobsen: Regarding your fellow activists, what do you encounter the most pushback on? Are they financial arguments, political arguments, issues around access, or maybe the vocabulary and tone of the conversations? What generates the strongest resistance in the American context?
Breon: Some people think no one should have access to abortion at all—plenty of people hold that view. Others believe that talking about abortion openly is taboo or inappropriate. That’s the same reality most organizers and activists face. Finances are also a big barrier. Suppose you live in a state where abortion is banned or heavily restricted. In that case, not everyone can afford to travel to another state where it’s available. Some people don’t have the time or can’t make the trip for many other reasons.
Jacobsen: Regarding the UNGA this year, were there any other services or presentations you provided besides the Care Machine? There is quite a range of activities associated with it.
Breon: Yes. The Care Machine wasn’t in New York this time. We held an activation at NeueHouse Madison Square in New York City during UNGA. The entire event was special. We screened a wonderful film by Emani Nakia Dennison called Bone Black: Midwives versus the South. It’s about Black women’s historical role in reproductive freedom in this country and the current reality for Black women. We also had a dance workshop by Mulheres Ao Vento. This Afro-Brazilian dance group explores the relationship between Black women, ancestral heritage, and reproductive freedom. We had a panel discussion about what’s working globally as we continue to create art and organize around reproductive justice.
Then we wrapped up with reminders of care. We always offer free care services whenever we activate the Care Machine, whether in any location or as part of the Care Van campaign that’s been travelling around the country. These can range from massages to tooth gems or hair adornment. We had free nail art and Reiki sessions in New York, both facilitated by local New Yorkers. It’s great to remind people that they deserve these different forms of care.
Jacobsen: I’m also getting insights from different angles by interviewing various participants. What was your favourite part of the event you participated in?
Breon: My favourite part was seeing a unique and necessary approach to the conversation about reproductive freedom. We often have panel discussions and talks, but this event was different. Yes, we had meaningful dialogues with experts worldwide and in various industries. Still, we also saw people moving their bodies and engaging in bodily exercises. That’s such an important form of care, especially with the amount of harm and violence in this country right now. Watching people enjoy an aesthetically pleasing film with so much content, substance, and a real message was also powerful. The whole experience felt special and refreshing.
Jacobsen: When interacting with individuals who bear the brunt of these issues—women who have survived unsafe abortions—what are the emotions and words they use to describe the aftermath of those experiences? As we both know, making abortion illegal doesn’t stop it; it just makes it unsafe, leading to more injuries and deaths. What comes up in these discussions?
Breon: One of the biggest things I hear about is the lack of dignity people feel when navigating and manipulating a system to get the care they need and deserve. There’s also the terrifying reality that they might be risking their lives. That lack of dignity is what stands out the most in these conversations. It’s a huge emotional burden. When we talk about what we’re worthy of and the reality I hope we soon achieve, dignity is at the heart of it. That’s what’s most important to me. It needs to be the foundation of the reality we’re working toward.
Jacobsen: So, would you say there’s an intrinsic argument here? Suppose people have open and safe access to abortion as part of reproductive healthcare. In that case, they inherently receive respect and dignity for their rights without being subjected to rights abuse.
Breon: Absolutely. That’s part of being a fully realized human. Maybe that’s also what stood out to me the most at the activation in New York—seeing what it looks like when everyone expects and is treated with dignity. We were modelling what the world can and will be.
Jacobsen: Do you think people in the social media and Internet age follow others more by their example or image? It’s a subtle distinction but important. You, I, and others have essentially grown up as digital natives. Older generations lived much of their lives without the digital trail we have now; things were hazier and more easily forgotten. Everything is curated; more than that, it’s often self-curated. Do you think this curation is unrealistic or even inauthentic? It ties into the broader conversation about the rise of narcissism in culture. Do you think the philosophy of leading by example has been diluted because people are projecting an image rather than authentically living as healthier versions of themselves?
Breon: People follow by both example and image. It’s a mix. Especially with elections, it’s fascinating to see where people get their information now. Many are no longer influenced by traditional media—network news or print publications. Instead, they’re influenced by peers or people they follow online. People make decisions based on the images they see, and often, that’s interpreted as following a model or example. But, in real life, people follow others by example—how they act and what they do.
That’s why creating spaces where people can share authentic stories is so important. They must share how they’re navigating the healthcare system and accessing reproductive healthcare. These stories offer opportunities for others seeking answers to see options and examples of what’s possible.
Jacobsen: If I may put you on the spot, what would you say is your contribution—your drop of water—to the larger activist space presented at this UNGA event?
Breon: Well, I’m an artist. I’m not a diplomat or a healthcare provider. But as an artist, I can create work that contributes to our shared human language—our lingua franca, if you will. I can use textures, colours, and objects to model the world I want to live in. That’s my contribution. I can show what it looks like to have safe and accessible abortions. I can present a vision of a world where care is the norm, where care is expected.
I can model interactions that break down stigmas and taboos through my art. Even if these ideals only exist while you’re in a gallery or at an activation like the one we had at NeueHouse, it’s something people can see and take into their personal lives.
Jacobsen: We’re almost out of time. Any final thoughts or feelings based on today’s conversation?
Breon: Oh, yes. I brought this up during one of the panels in New York, and I think it’s worth mentioning again. More than half of Black women of reproductive age—between 15 and 49—live in states where there are either abortion bans, severe restrictions, or limited to no access to abortion. That’s an alarming reality.
This is why we can’t rely on the state or existing systems. These systems are what got us into this situation in the first place. The only way forward is to create solutions and take care of each other in this reality. When you look at numbers like that, the urgency becomes clear. People have already died, and sadly, more will continue to die because of these bans. We cannot rely on the systems that got us here to solve this crisis.
Jacobsen: Autumn, as a foreigner and a Canadian, I truly feel for you and your situation. Thank you so much for your time and this conversation today.
Breon: Thank you for your thoughtful questions. If there’s anything else you need—more info or follow-up questions—please feel free to reach out.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/07
Women Create! is the world’s first ever conference exclusively for cancelled female and feminist artists from across the political spectrum.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration behind Women Create?
Victoria Gugenheim: The inspiration behind Women Create was that there was simply no place for dissenting female voices, and the artists and activists I know needed a space for both them, and the men and women who support them.
Women who have been at risk of cancellation, or who have been cancelled, feminists who have been cancelled and placed at risk, and women apostates who are at risk were the main catalysts as no place on earth catered exclusively to these women, so I thought I would create a space.
As it champions women’s freedom of thought, conscience and expression, I worked with Maryam Namazie to make it new part of the long standing Celebrating Dissent series produced by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, an event which has also inspired me greatly with the courage of the female ex-Muslim attendees who have fled violence and persecution to find their voices away from tyranny.
Rosie Kay, who created Freedom in the Arts, also inspired me. And I kept seeing more and more women, all the good ones, get cancelled.
Moreover, I thought, “Grief, it’s gotten to the point that female artists have had death threats in Brazil for talking about vaginas in their work. I need to do something as this is ridiculous; it’s a human rights abuse.” And so here we are.
Jacobsen: Who are the women behind Women Create?
Gugenheim: The women behind Women Create are me, and the other adviser is Maryam Namazie. We also have a male ally called Magnus Timmerby. That is it. I have organized a vast majority of it myself until recently.
I also want to thank Angela Wild, Jenny Wenhemmar, Di Winn of Geek Practique, and Paula Boulton for their solidarity behind the scenes.
Jacobsen: What is the importance of this event?
Gugenheim: In a world that is rapidly encroaching upon the freedoms of women, including their creative freedoms, it is essential to lift up marginalized female voices, demonstrate that there is a growing problem both in the art world and worldwide, work towards solutions by making sure their stories and creations are visible, nurture creativity in other women, and be a catalyst for change. No other event is doing that.
Jacobsen: What are the highlights?
Gugenheim: We have everything from talks, panels, workshops, a mini film festival and more besides and art from women across the globe. We’ll have a Q and A with cancelled documentarian Vaishnavi Sundar, and a conversation with award winning writer Roxana Shirazi. It’s also the only event of its kind where a robust diversity of opinion between different women has even been tabled, so if you value genuine diversity of thought, it’s a must.
I’m also premiering a world first which I’m proud of; Painted Powerful, My Body is Mine, which is the world’s first bodyart project, documentary and exhibition working exclusively with female sexual violence/SA/DV/coercive control survivors as a way for them to take back their bodies after their ordeals, with a select few other women in tow, and a premiere of Music Video by EDM and Folk musician Shelley Segal.
More importantly, we have cancelled women from across the globe, be it from the USA, Canada India, Morocco,and women who have fled the Iranian regime, and it is essential to have those voices there.
We also have veteran and award-winning activists. It’s set to be a trailblazing yet grassroots event for the women who need it.
Jacobsen: How can folks get plugged in?
Gugenheim: If you want to get involved, go to WomenCreate.co.uk. You can also scout for us on Eventbrite or follow me on Twitter. My handle is Quirkathon.
Jacobsen: Any final points?
Gugenheim: Just as an extra, many women are coming who have lost their livelihoods or had years of censorship and cancellation, had rape threats, death threats, fatwas, all because they are women who want to create something that is against the status quo. We cannot live in a world where female artists are the new canaries in the coal mine and being gassed. We have to lift up their voices to maintain freedom of thought, conscience, and expression because the artists and creatives always tend to go first under tyrannt, and it is always women who bear the brunt of cancellation more so. And if we don’t stand with them, who’s going to be next?
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/07
JeromeClayton Glennis co-founder and CEO of The Millennium Project, a leading global participatory think tank with 71 Nodes around the world, and three regional networks which produces the State of the Future reports for over 25 years.
He was contracted by the EC to write the AGI paper for input to their Horizon program 2025-2027, is a Member of the IEEE SA organizational governance of artificial intelligence working group P2863, lead the international assessment of foresight elements of the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda. He is currently working on the initial conditions, rules, and guardrails for artificial general intelligence (AGI) and governance possibilities, synergetic relations among nations of South Asia, and the next State of the Future report.
Jerome Glenn has managed over 60 futures research projects, lead author for 19 State of the Future reports, and co-editor for Futures Research Methodology 1.0 to 3.0
He invented the Futures Wheel, Synergy Matrix, and concepts such as conscious-technology, transInstitutions, tele-nations, management by understanding, self-actualization economy, feminine brain drain, and definitions of environmental security and collective Intelligence. He wrote about information warfare in the late 1980s, sent his first email in 1973, and in the mid-1980s he was instrumental in getting x.25 packet switching in 29 developing countries which was key to low-cost access to the Internet.
A few years ago, he led the design and implementation of the Global Futures Intelligence System, wrote Work/Technology 2050: Scenarios and Actions, and lead the American Red Cross Covid-19 Scenarios. He was instrumental in naming the first Space Shuttle the Enterprise and banning the first space weapon (FOBS) in SALT II. He has published over 250 future-oriented articles, spoken to over 800 organizations, and wrote Future Mind: Artificial Intelligence, Linking the Future, and co-author of Space Trek: The Endless Migration).
He shares the 2022 Lifeboat Guardian Award with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, received the Donella Meadows Metal, Kondratieff Metal, Emerald Citation of Excellence, honorary professorship from Universidad Miguel de Cervantes, and honorary doctor’s degrees from Universidad Ricardo Palma and Universidad Franz Tamayo, and is a leading boomerang stunt man.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are again with Jerome C. Glenn of the Millennium Project. Today’s focus is the State of the Future 20.0 report, primarily authored by Jerome C. Glenn, Theodore J. Gordon, Elizabeth Florescu, and the Millennium Project team. I want to take a quick historical look. What was the original inspiration for the State of the Future report?
Jerome C. Glenn: The original inspiration was figuring out how to prove that future research is improving. The idea was to have some foundational elements that we would regularly update and improve to monitor global change and our ability to analyze that change. That’s where the 15 global challenges come in. You can take any of the previous 19 reports, look at Challenge 1 or 5, for example, and assess whether it has improved over the past 15 years. It was a way to compel us to continuously enhance our cumulative work. If something was a brilliant statement three years ago, why discard it? It’s still relevant. Just like the brain, it’s a cumulative system. You keep improving, ideally, as you gather new information. The idea behind The State of the Future was to create a mechanism for ongoing improvement.
Jacobsen: Could you share an “in memoriam” note for Theodore “Ted” J. Gordon? What did he mean to you and the project, and what were some key aspects of his contribution to this last report?
Glenn: Ted contributed more to future research methodologies than any other historical futurist. He was at the RAND Corporation during its early days when brilliant minds like Herman Kahn and others discussed the future. Ted was the first to ask, “What are the methods for studying the future?” From that came methodologies like Delphi, cross-impact analysis, and technology sequence analysis. He transformed future research from speculative thinking into a rigorous methodological field, which was acknowledged in his eulogy by the RAND Corporation. I thought that was a valuable insight.
Jacobsen: What was Ted’s role in the Millennium Project?
Glenn: Ted was the original creator of the Millennium Project concept, though I later revised it. His initial idea was to conduct a massive study on the future for the year 2000. I thought, “We don’t just need a one-time study; we need a global system for continuous future research.” That’s what the Millennium Project eventually became. Ted was also stronger in mathematics, statistical analysis, and quantitative approaches, while I was better on the qualitative side. Our complementary skills created a strong synergy, and we worked together for many years. We were the longest-working partner in future studies. Alvin Toffler and his wife also worked together for a long time. Still, Ted and I surpassed that in terms of sustained collaboration.
So, he was a good mentor. He was older than I was and obviously very bright. He was a rocket scientist, by the way. He worked on the third stage of the Apollo rocket, or the Saturn rocket, that went to the moon.
So when people say, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist,” I respond, “Yes, it does—and there he is.”
Jacobsen: Let’s start with the report today by following those notes. How can global governance systems balance economic growth and sustainability to meet the various targets of the Paris Agreement by 2050?
Glenn: Oh, boy. One of the things we point out in Challenge 1 on sustainable development and climate change—and also in Challenge 3 on demographics and resources, and Challenge 2 to some degree on water—is that the most likely, cost-effective strategy isn’t just changing cars or energy systems; it’s changing food systems. This is why it’s important to consider cost-effectiveness and time to impact.
If something is cost-effective but takes 40 years, it won’t matter as much as something that can take 10 years. The amount of land and water we use is far greater for growing animals we eat than for growing food directly for ourselves. As you may know, most of the water is used in agriculture, and most is used to grow food for animals we consume. So, cut out the middleman. Any business will tell you—cutting out the middleman reduces costs.
In this case, the middleman is the animal. We now know how to produce meat directly from genetic material into meat cells. We know how to do this. The issue is scaling it up. Singapore has been selling lab-grown meat for a couple of years, and in the United States, the FDA approved it last year.
The challenge isn’t the ability to produce it but scaling it up. You don’t want to be a large grocery store chain with lab-grown meat [Ed. Cell-based meat] available one week and then not the next, leaving your customers frustrated. Right now, the issue is scaling.
If we can get enough people in the world to eat a hamburger, that’s pure meat—because the meat we get from cows in factories is filled with hormones and drugs. In fact, more drugs go into animals than into humans—about seven times more pharmaceuticals are used in animals globally than for humans. The purest form of meat would come directly from genetic material, with a little stimulation, some feedstock, algae, and voilà, out comes your hamburger.
The amount of electricity and resources required to raise animals for meat is staggering. You don’t get your meat the next day—you get it years later. That’s a long-term investment. But with lab-grown meat, once you’re operational, you get a daily return on investment. Financially and environmentally, it’s the way to go.
Now, think about cars. The average lifespan of a car is around 17 years—it’s bought, sold as a used car, and sold again. If we converted all cars to electric right now, we’d still have a backlog of gasoline-powered cars for years. Yes, we should make the switch—I drive a Prius myself—but it takes time.
The same goes for transitioning to an electric grid. It’s a massive undertaking. And then you have AI, which some estimate now consumes 5-7% of global electricity. Throw cryptocurrency on top of that, and the energy demand is growing exponentially [Ed. Accelerating growth.].
Even though we have all this new electricity coming from solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources, the bulk of energy still comes from fossil fuels. That bulk will continue to be a dominant source for several years. On the other hand, food systems can change faster and globally. Another factor to consider is that, as the costs of raising food animals increase, the price of meat will become prohibitive for poorer populations.
Children, especially those between 3 to 5 years old, need iron and protein for proper brain development. If you look at some photos from certain parts of Africa, you’ll notice children with reddish hair. That’s kwashiorkor, a form of protein malnutrition. They develop it because they aren’t getting enough iron and protein in their diets. So, if we don’t shift to lab-grown meat—produced directly from genetic material—not only will we face environmental challenges, but we will also see a significant impact on the cognitive development of poor populations in the future.
One of the things I feel most strongly about—and as you’ve probably noticed, I’m quite passionate about this—is that we need to start focusing on food systems. It’s not just about changing your electricity system or switching to electric cars. We must also change the way we eat. How many people at environmental conferences are still eating meat today?
Even Democrats like Al Gore didn’t mention food in his award-winning documentary. At the COP26 summit in Scotland, they finally started talking about methane emissions. They’re getting there, but it’s slow progress. And for your listeners, it’s not just about cow emissions, though that’s often exaggerated or used as a distraction. It’s not just cow farts—it’s the whole production process. Turning over land to grow food for animals also produces methane. There’s a whole series of steps involved. For instance, we ship meat to South Korea using oil-powered ships. People who aren’t taking this seriously haven’t done their homework.
That, I’d argue, is one of the most important insights for addressing the Paris Agreement.
Jacobsen: I want to focus on some of the nuances of systems and governance mentioned in the report. This includes a focus on international collaboration and frameworks. How can global collaboration frameworks, such as the UN’s proposed four foresight elements, be strengthened to manage existential risks like climate change or AGI?
Glenn: Right. Help me remember to come back to climate synergy because I’ll likely get stuck on the AI and UN frameworks, which are important. I definitely want to return to the topic of synergy.
The UN Secretary-General recently co-authored a report, and he was very involved in it. His background is chemical engineering, so he’s quite familiar with the science. In that report, he outlined five foresight elements to revitalize the United Nations and make it more relevant to the future. One of these elements is to “repurpose” the Trusteeship Council into a multi-stakeholder foresight body.
Let me break that down. The UN has several major institutions, such as the Security Council and the Secretariat. One is the UN Trusteeship Council, which played a crucial role after World War II, particularly during decolonization. The council was instrumental in helping newly independent countries transition. The UN doesn’t get enough credit for this, but it did important work.
With decolonization mostly behind us, the Trusteeship Council doesn’t have much to do. There’s a huge room and infrastructure, but it’s not being utilized. The Secretary-General is proposing we repurpose it. That’s the first part. The second part is transforming it into a multi-stakeholder institution. Traditionally, the UN has been a club for nation-states. Still, a multi-stakeholder body would include not just governments but corporations, universities, think tanks, journalists—whoever has a stake in global governance.
This is important because governments no longer control most global financial power. Most of the world’s wealth is in the hands of investment houses. For example, 70% of the New York Stock Exchange trades are made by AI, not directly by human decision-makers. So, governments aren’t the only game in town anymore. Recognizing this reality, the Secretary-General has proposed a multi-stakeholder body to reflect today’s true distribution of power and influence.
So, you have that. The whole purpose would be foresight, meaning one-fifth of the UN would become future-oriented. That’s a gigantic change. As you can guess, it’s not easy to make such a change in the UN.
To implement this, they would need to amend the charter. We’ll see if that happens, but that’s one of the major proposals. The second proposal is to create a “futures lab”—a think tank within the Secretariat. I hope they’ll include professional futurists who have actually conducted future research. However,. Though they’ll need some bureaucrats to ensure the system runs smoothly, hopefully, they’ll bring in serious experts in the field.
A third proposal is to appoint an envoy for future generations. The idea is to have someone ensuring that decisions made within the UN system consider the impact on future generations—both within the UN and pushing other countries to do the same. By the way, Wales has been a champion of this type of thinking. For your listeners, it’s about operationalizing future generations in decision-making.
Then, of course, the Summit of the Future is happening as we speak. It was originally supposed to happen last year, and we assessed related issues included in the State of the Future report. We pointed out that, to achieve all these changes, you won’t be able to do it in a short period. So, they moved the summit to this year, encouraging many countries to think about what they should say regarding the future. However, much of what will be said is probably what they would say regardless of the topic. So, the impact may not be as significant as I would have liked, but it’s a start.
Did I cover everything? Let’s jump over to synergy. You put a virtual asterisk on the term or concept of synergy.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Glenn: Thank you. This ties directly into governance. The political world today operates largely as a zero-sum game. If you’re more powerful, I’m, therefore, less powerful. This is reflected in major government reports, like in my country, the United States, where they release a trend report every four years before a new president takes office. The report essentially outlines how to increase or decrease power.
In my view, the world as a zero-sum game guarantees unending conflict, as we’ve seen throughout history. So, what can change that? What kind of decision-making can alter that dynamic? I would like to see schools of business and diplomacy start teaching synergetic analysis.
For example, business schools teach us about competitive intelligence, competitive advantage, and competitive strategy. That’s been the framework so far. But I’ve suggested to several business schools that we also teach synergetic intelligence. What would synergetic advantage or synergetic strategy look like? We’ve got two experiments running at the moment to explore this idea.
One experiment is in South Asia. It involves eight countries. We create a grid, listing the countries down one side and across the top. Then we ask, “What are the potential synergetic relations between Pakistan and India?” Immediately, people’s minds often shut down, thinking, “I can’t imagine that.” They might come up with something minor, like tourism, but that’s basic cooperation.
I’m not talking about mere cooperation between countries but about synergies. As the great futurist, Buckminster Fuller pointed out, here’s the distinction:
Take a wheel and a box.
Put the wheel inside the box, and nothing much happens.
Take the wheel out, put it under the box, and you get a wheelbarrow—a completely new entity.
A wheelbarrow is not just a wheel or just a box. It’s a new relationship that forms something entirely different.
Can we create similar new relationships between nation-states? Even in business, imagine two companies: one seeks multiple synergetic relationships with other businesses. In contrast, the other only follows the typical competitive analysis. Synergy could outperform the competition. In my view, one of the critical criteria for future decision-making is teaching people to understand synergy and how it can improve outcomes. I’m not advocating for eliminating competition, but I am suggesting that we can achieve better results by adding synergy to the decision-making process.
Jacobsen: You mentioned malnutrition, specifically how iron and protein deficiencies at crucial stages of development affect brain growth. Protein, iron, and other core macronutrients are essential for a fully developed nervous system. When it comes to global inequality, can technology and AI help address growing wealth disparities, which have been a political and economic issue dating back to ancient Greece?
Glenn: This is a complex issue, so I’ll offer a somewhat superficial answer. One immediate solution is that AI can help create individualized learning systems. With projects like Elon Musk’s satellites providing rural areas with Internet access, we’re nearing a point where almost everyone will have online connectivity within a few years. This would allow individuals to learn at their own pace based on their specific needs and circumstances.
AI can facilitate massively customized education, tailored to each person, which should significantly improve learning. We know people learn best when they’re engaged with topics they’re interested in at that moment. Traditional classrooms can’t offer that level of personalization. AI, however, can adapt brilliantly to these learning needs.
That’sOne part of the equation is improving education and helping people understand their potential. The other part concerns the jobs that will be displaced by AI. Many jobs today may not be available in the future due to advanced AI. One widely discussed solution is universal basic income (UBI).
In our Work/Technology 2050: Scenarios and Actions report, one of the scenarios was titled “If Humans Were Free,”which explored the idea of a self-actualization economy.
The idea—and as I was working on that scenario—I thought, okay, who has the cash flow projection for UBI, universal basic income? If you go to a bank to get a loan, you need to provide a cash flow projection to show that you can pay it back and that it’s financially sustainable. But I couldn’t find any country that had done one for UBI. So, if any of your listeners can send me a web link to a proper cash flow projection—money in, money out over time—that would be helpful.
You don’t want to break the back of a government’s treasury by overpaying and not making it sustainable. So, what makes sense? The timing of implementation matters, and the cost of living matters.
Here are a couple of variables: One, as labour is reduced in production, costs will eventually go down—not immediately, but perhaps by 2030 or 2035. So, by then, the cost of living might be lower than it is now, and you wouldn’t need to pay as much in UBI. That’s one bell curve: the cost of living rises and then falls.
The other rising curve will be new sources of taxable income, like taxing robots, synthetic biology, and the products of AI and biotech. As this new income grows, the question is: when will the cost of living decrease enough and the new taxable income increase enough that they cross over, making UBI financially sustainable? When that happens, we’ll have a sustainable system.
Additionally, with AI assisting people, you could have an AI avatar that understands what you want to do and helps you find opportunities. Imagine you’re planning to visit the Louvre tomorrow. Your AI avatar would search the web for people interested in joining you virtually. Maybe 100 people would pay $1 each to virtually join you on your tour, using your contact lenses and two-way video system. But let’s say you want to narrow it down to 50 interesting people who will make the experience more engaging. Now, you’re touring the Louvre alone but interacting with fascinating individuals worldwide, and they’re paying you $50, which covers your lunch.
I’m describing how AI could help people find markets for what they want or are already doing, allowing them to make a living without physically going to a marketplace. The market was the center in the past, and we revolved around it. In the information revolution, every point in the orbit becomes a center, so we all become the center of a world system. Each person could eventually make a living simply by being themselves.
I recommend that people figure out how to monetize their hobbies today. What do you enjoy doing? How do you want to evolve between birth and death? Can some of that be for income? Your AI avatar can help you find the right audience. Out of the world’s 8-10 billion people, surely a few would be willing to pay you for what you’re already doing.
Jacobsen: We have five minutes left, so I’ll ask a final question. What about optimizing collective paths in governance and systems as we navigate the development of advanced technologies and choosing the ones with the highest probabilities of being positive for human flourishing? Specifically, I’m talking about ethical frameworks that may not be fully developed yet, or that could surpass the limitations of current moral structures. How do we approach the evolution and development of these frameworks?
Glenn: I’m not entirely sure I fully understood your question, but I’ll do my best to answer it. Let’s see if I’m on the right track.
I sit on the IEEE AI governance committee, which spends much time defining ethical terms. How do you audit something for ethics? First, you need to define the terms, and that’s what we’re doing. It struck me that if you imagine two worlds—one like we have now, where humans make both smart and dumb decisions, with a range of ethical considerations—and then imagine another world where the infrastructure of civilization (electricity systems, plumbing systems, etc.) is run by AI, all vetted for ethics, the average decision in the AI-driven world would likely be more ethical. The AI would have passed various benchmarks, meaning decisions would generally be more ethical than those made by humans today.
Jacobsen: Are you aware of any efforts being made to develop those AI systems with relevant benchmarks for ethical decision-making?
Glenn: Yes, absolutely. There are many efforts. I was involved in the early days of the Internet in the 1980s, working on getting it into third-world countries through packet switching. Back then, no one was talking about the ethical implications—it was assumed that technology was good. We didn’t conduct proper technology assessments.
Today, there’s a massive focus on technology assessment and ethics. As we speak, there are probably hundreds of conferences worldwide discussing how to ensure ethical standards in AI. Several organizations are working on this—IEEE, ISO, UNESCO, OECD, and others. There’s even a Global Partnership on AI. Ethics in AI is flourishing everywhere, and they’re all working on it.
So, I’m not concerned about the current discussions on ethics. What worries me is the next step: artificial general intelligence (AGI). Most conversations today are about narrow AI, like ChatGPT and other generative models. They’re focused on specific, limited tasks. But AGI—AI that acts as an agent, not just a tool—is different and much more complex.
Hopefully, our ethics frameworks will extend to how AGI is created. This is one of the key issues we explore in the State of the Future report, where we go into 100 to 200 pages of detail.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Jerome, thank you for your time today to discuss the State of the Future 20.0 report.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/06
Jiří Müller is part of Czech Humanists or Čeští humanisté. It is a newly formed group promoting secular humanism, a philosophy grounded in reason, secular ethics, human rights, and personal development. While forming their first projects and seeking new members, Czech Humanists advocate for democracy, free inquiry, and anti-dogmatism. Their worldview is outlined in the Declaration of Modern Humanism. Czech Humanists are also members of Humanists International. For more information, contact them at contact@humanists.cz.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Jiri Müller from the Czech Republic, representing the Czech Humanists. You attended the Humanists International General Assembly 2024 in Singapore, but I could not participate.
I was on a brief ‘vacation’ with Remus Cernea in Ukraine. I don’t recommend visiting there because people are generally trying to stay alive, escape, or are being forced into fighting on the frontlines. There are certainly better vacation spots. What were some of the main focus areas for the General Assembly in Singapore this year?
Jiří Müller: The conference in Singapore focused on secularism and interfaith harmony. The General Assembly itself didn’t have an official theme. Still, the main topics were Afghanistan and the ongoing crises in other difficult parts of the world. Another key issue was how we, as a global network of organizations, can support organizations from the Global South. I think those were the two main themes of the General Assembly.
Jacobsen: In terms of the proceedings, how did the General Assembly portion of the conference go? Were any resolutions passed, declarations revised, or new organizations welcomed into the global humanist movement?
Müller: That’s correct. First, if I’m correct, a few declarations were passed, including one on Afghanistan and another on Venezuela. There was also a commitment to organizing future World Humanist Congresses and other international humanist conferences in more accessible countries. Several new organizations, mainly from Asia, joined the Humanists International family, which was great. The location of the international conference is a perfect choice since we now have member organizations from Malaysia and Indonesia. Meeting the delegates from these two new organizations was especially rewarding at the conference.
Additionally, there was voting and discussion about our voting processes. The discussion on voting in the organization is not entirely resolved. I think it will be revisited next year at the General Assembly.
Jacobsen: Organizations looking to join Humanists International are typically smaller or newer. It’s rare for older, established organizations to join later since they tend to grow alongside the international community rather than joining at a later stage. It does happen occasionally, but it’s not the norm.
What are your recommendations for younger organizations, particularly from a European perspective, where it might be easier to spread humanist values and build a community? How can they find appropriate leadership, secure funding, build their organization, maintain a sense of community, and stay connected to the international network?
Müller: I think you’ve already listed some key points. The Czech Humanists only started in 2023, so we’re a very young organization. It has been incredibly helpful to have friends in the international community who can guide and inspire us on how to run a humanist organization.
I recommend a few things for new and emerging humanist organizations which have been very helpful for us and that we follow closely. First, it’s always good to have proof of activity. When someone comes across your organization, it should be clear what you consider your primary activity or activities you’ve already completed. Discussing humanism or reacting to current events can effectively spread the message and clarify your stance.
But people usually become interested if they see an interesting project. For us, we started a secular news blog called Secular Insights. We also want to start an apostate support group. These projects show people interested in humanism and what it means to put humanism into practice. Another thing I recommend is to look for like-minded people in places where there is already some overlap with humanists.
Humanism is historically well-rooted in slightly more intellectual and middle-class spaces, so universities are a good place to look. I would also recommend progressive campaigning, such as Pride events and organizations related to progressive issues. These tend to align well with humanist ideals. Many people in those organizations, campaigns, and spaces may not realize they are humanists. Still, they would appreciate a community like a humanist one.
I think these two recommendations—proof of activity through projects and knowing your demographic and allies—are the key advice I can give now. But there’s always more to say. I would also recommend seeking advice from organizations in your region. We have very good relations within the Visegrád Four, and I think everyone should try to connect with people in neighbouring countries if they don’t have connections within their own. Atheist and humanist organizations across borders can offer valuable advice and help in the early stages of building a community.
Jacobsen: What was your overall takeaway from the conference?
Müller: One of the big takeaways was how much research and how many projects exist related to secularism and interfaith harmony. It often seems like atheism and secularism are not interesting topics for study, as religious scholars tend to focus on new ways of understanding spirituality and religiosity. But at this conference, I saw excellent speakers presenting fascinating research on secularism and interfaith projects and sharing real-life experiences. They offered practical, perhaps diplomatic, approaches to handling interfaith projects.
Jacobsen: Did you get to explore the larger city of Singapore? When conferences are based in major cities, people often come a bit earlier or stay later to get a feel for the local culture, especially since it might be their only chance to visit. Did you take more time to explore? If so, how long did you stay, and what were some of your takeaways from exploring the city?
Müller: I had the good fortune of exploring the city myself. I even had a few humanists that I met in Copenhagen join me. It was a great experience.
So, I visited many of the parks that Singapore has to offer. Overall, I enjoyed the city, including Singapore’s restaurants, shops, and public spaces. My favourite places were the National Singapore Museum and Gardens by the Bay. The latter is much more well-known than the museum, but I was happy with both experiences. Gardens by the Bay receives high praise, and it lives up to it, which is impressive, given how well-known and popular it already is.
Yes, there were some cultural shocks, such as the cuisine and the sharp contrast between the outdoor heat and the strong air conditioning inside buildings. However, overall, I felt very welcomed in the city. It was easy to navigate, and I enjoyed my stay and many of its wonderful details.
Jacobsen: So, considering how the culture of Singapore mixed with the theme of the conference—interfaith dialogue and harmony—how well do you think the cultural setup aligned with the thematic focus?
Müller: I think the theme for Singapore was very well chosen. The city is an interesting example of how to approach interfaith relations and religious pluralism. You can see streets with churches, mosques, and temples right next to each other. The multiracial and multicultural approaches to the city itself are evident. I would say that the Humanist Society Singapore did a great job organizing the conference, allowing attendees to feel and experience this pluralistic society firsthand.
One of the highlights before the conference was visiting a local mosque and learning about their Religious Rehabilitation Group. This project focuses on helping to deradicalize Muslims who have been jailed for radicalism. It was a very inspiring project, and we learned a lot.
It’s commendable how systematic the approach is. It’s characteristically Singaporean: the state is strict on radicalism, but at the same time, there are local Muslim community volunteers to help those convicted of radicalism. They use their community to address the problem of Islamic radicalism ethically and with care to foster a good, pluralistic society.
Jacobsen: Are there aspects of Singaporean culture or history, especially as a young country that developed rapidly, which stood out to you? Did you notice any humanistic elements in the general culture outside of the conference?
Müller: Yes, especially the emphasis on mutual respect and embracing differences, which felt very humanistic. Singapore’s approach to living together in a diverse society stood out in general culture and outside the conference space. It’s a unique place where respect for each other’s differences is paramount.
In a sense, it was not only nice from a tourist’s point of view, where you could enjoy different types of cultures right next to each other, but it was also very rewarding as a humanist striving to live in an open society. It was encouraging to see this model of a multiracial and religiously pluralistic society in a much different environment than what we typically see with more established, larger Western humanist organizations. Especially compared to countries with more humanists, Singapore showed a different yet successful example.
Jacobsen: A big factor in North American and European humanism is the presence of more aggressive formulations, such as Firebrand Atheism, Militant Atheism, New Atheism, and so on. This approach differs from what you might find in humanistic orientations elsewhere, yet we see these outcroppings in those contexts.
Do you think the Singaporeans had any militant tendencies or was their approach more in line with diplomatic interfaith harmony? Was it more of a cultural difference in the interpretation of humanist values?
Müller: I think it was quite comparable in some ways. There are diplomatic humanists and more provocative thinkers in many Western atheist and humanist spaces. In Singapore, I felt the pendulum swung toward mutual respect, with an understanding of boundaries regarding offence and the subjective perspective on what respect means.
Singapore is not a place for religious radicalism or provocative atheism. However, it is still a place for constructive and critical interfaith discussions. They strike a balance between maintaining respect and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Jacobsen: What are your hopes for future international humanist conferences?
Müller: I hope that this tradition continues in some form. Regarding how these events should be organized, I believe there should be a strong emphasis on the international aspect and openness to participation from people worldwide.
I hope these gatherings become fertile ground for new organizations, projects, and initiatives. There’s always the risk of falling into “conference humanism,” where we present and debate abstract ideas. However, the emphasis should be on creating real-world projects and activities. The most valuable outcomes of these conferences are when you look back at your notes and see how many new contacts you’ve made and how many new things you can organize with friends from other countries.
What I see at the heart of these General Assemblies and international conferences is that even though we come from different corners of the world, there’s always something interesting to discuss and meaningful to create together. That’s what I hope to see more of in the future.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Jiri, thank you very much for your time today.
Müller: Thank you so much. It was nice talking to you, and I’m very thankful for the opportunity to share my experience.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. I’m sure we’ll be in touch in the future.
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.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/05
*Transcript edited for readability.*
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 largely the 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.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/03
Nathan Givoni is the Chief Executive Officer and cofounder of Gelteq. He is a trusted health and wellness professional and qualified dietitian with over 15 years of experience. He founded (and later sold) Lifestyle Breakthrough, a medical and allied health consulting company with locations across Australia. He has launched and continues to support a not-for-profit health promotion charity, the Metabolic Health Foundation, to help address the growing epidemic of metabolic-related conditions in Australia. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Physiology & Psychology, First Class Honors in Physiology, and a Bachelor of Nutrition and Dietetics from Monash University. Nathan has worked as an adjunct lecturer at Monash University and has published multiple papers after his undergraduate degree.
Simon Szewach is the co-founder and Executive Chairman of Gelteq, a global biotechnology company specializing in formulating, developing, and manufacturing an innovative and new ingestible gel technology. He has successfully launched new product trends in the finance, health, technology, and sports sectors with companies such as nTouch Pty Ltd, a proximity-based marketing platform, and StartHere.com.au, an incentive-based shopping platform. Simon is also the co-founder and Director of the Sports Diplomacy Alliance and holds a Bachelor of Business in Banking & Finance and a Bachelor of Arts in Asian Studies (Korean) from Monash University in Australia.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Nathan Givoni and Simon Szewach, cofounders of Geltech, and its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, respectively.
To start, the reason for founding this company relates to some people’s problems with something as simple as swallowing a pill. Difficulty with this is called dysphagia. How significant is this issue? How prevalent is it? And what came to mind when you noticed the need for a solution?
Givoni & Szewach: Globally, nearly 800 million people struggle with swallowing. About 600 million are adults, and a couple hundred million are children.
We see this as a crucial issue for those with trouble swallowing standard medications, whether pills, capsules, gummies, or similar. If people can’t take their medications to manage medical conditions or even take nutritional supplements, they will struggle to maintain their health. It is essential to provide a solution that allows them to improve and maintain their health. This issue affects older adults as well, as dysphagia can arise from various medical conditions, including those treated with radiotherapy for cancer. So, there is a wide range of causes.
For us, it’s about addressing a much larger market than most people realize and ensuring it’s well-served.
Jacobsen: What is the basic science behind this drug delivery system to overcome dysphagia?
Givoni & Szewach: We’ve developed a gel-based product that can be delivered through a pouch with a nozzle. Essentially, it’s a thickened liquid designed to deliver nutrients or medications. We offer a range of textures, specifically varying thicknesses, which meet the dysphagia criteria. There’s a standard called IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative), which sets thickness levels appropriate for people with dysphagia based on their assessments. We have developed a gel base that meets each of these levels.
The core of the technology is creating a uniform, consistent thickness and a gel matrix that can stably hold nutrients. Additionally, we can modulate the taste of ingredients to make them more pleasant. Many medications or nutritional products can taste unpleasant when converted to a liquid or gummy form. We work on taste modulation and masking to improve the user’s experience.
Jacobsen: How do you make this palatable for animal medications?
Givoni & Szewach: It’s easier for them to consume animal medications because you can’t just feed an animal medication directly — you don’t want to get bitten in the process! We flavour the product with animal palatants to make it something they enjoy consuming. We might use flavours like chicken, beef, or fish, depending on the need.
We keep the dose small and manageable. It can either be squeezed directly into the animal’s mouth, making it easy to administer or used as a food topper. Whatever the preference of the person or the animal, we provide options to work through the medication or nutritional space.
Jacobsen: Regarding flavour modulation, do you conduct human trials to determine the top five flavours people like? Does that help bring a concept to market more easily?
Givoni & Szewach: We rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and existing trials related to regional flavour preferences. Rather than being too specific, we collaborate with customers from different regions worldwide and tailor the flavours accordingly. For example, Asia might prefer flavour profiles different from those of the United States. We try to match flavours to regional tastes and preferences.
Jacobsen: What are some of the popular flavours?
Givoni & Szewach: Common flavors include orange and apple. Depending on the product, you also have berry flavours like strawberry or blueberry. Some people associate certain flavours with health benefits. For example, blueberries are linked to cognitive health, so people prefer that association with certain products. More exotic fruits and coconut-based flavours might be popular in regions like the Middle East.
Jacobsen: How do you ensure the stability of the nutrients in the gel and prevent them from degrading over time?
Givoni & Szewach: We conduct rigorous stability testing to ensure the nutrients remain stable and effective for at least a two-year shelf life. The gel matrix is designed to protect the nutrients by preventing exposure to air, which helps avoid oxidation and ensures the ingredients don’t degrade over time.
Jacobsen: Are there differences between fat-soluble vitamins and minerals versus water-soluble ones when it comes to preserving their stability in the gel?
Givoni & Szewach: Yes, there are differences. Our base formula has variations, which are protected by our intellectual property (IP), allowing us to accommodate water- and oil-soluble ingredients. The formulation for water-based ingredients is slightly different from oil-based ones to maintain the required stability.
We can combine water- and oil-soluble ingredients in one product or keep them separate in different products. We adjust the gel matrix accordingly to accommodate each.
Jacobsen: How do you develop partnerships to scale this up and help the 630 million adults and 100 million children who have difficulties swallowing pills?
Givoni & Szewach: That’s a great question. We work with several B2B customers who may already offer different solutions, such as pills, powders, or tablets. We aim to partner with them to introduce an innovative delivery system for their customers. Many people who couldn’t take pills or powders now have access to a solution. It’s a B2B solution from our end.
Jacobsen: What barriers and hurdles have you encountered, and what do you anticipate as you develop the technology further and expand the business?
Givoni & Szewach: The main barrier is that it’s still a new delivery system. Traditionally, pills, powders, tablets, and pastes have been around long, so people sometimes associate gels with pastes. Pastes can have negative side effects, like getting stuck on the tongue and requiring water afterward. Our solution is much more hydro-based, so you don’t need to take anything after it. The challenge is getting people to adopt this new solution, which not everyone has tried before.
Jacobsen: So, you’re pointing to more of a cultural and social barrier, where people are used to taking pills?
Givoni & Szewach: Yes, absolutely. However, once people try the gel solution, they tend to have a much better experience than other delivery methods and almost enjoy their treatments.
Jacobsen: Are there countries where there isn’t a strong culture of taking pills or capsules and where gels might be more easily accepted because there isn’t a preexisting barrier?
Givoni & Szewach: It’s more common in ethnic communities, like in China with traditional Chinese medicine or Indian ethnic medicines, where they might have used other delivery methods that aren’t as tied to pills, powders, and capsules.
Jacobsen: Where are you looking to make the biggest impact on expansion in the 2020s? How are you planning to bring this delivery method to the mainstream market? Is it a regional product?
Givoni & Szewach: No, it’s both. From a regional perspective, we focus on North America and see significant growth for GelTech there in the next 12 months. We’re opening new offices on both the East and West Coasts. Asia-Pacific continues to be a major market for us, and we see that expanding. We’re also moving into the MENA region (Middle East & North Africa) and have early product rollouts in Australia.
As for the products themselves, over the next 12 to 24 months, we’re focusing on the nutraceutical space, looking at vitamins and tablets, and exploring different sports market opportunities.
Givoni & Szewach: We’ll roll out a range of sports-based products globally across different sports. Later, we’ll extend this to the animal space and eventually to the pharmaceutical space.
Jacobsen: Do different gels have the potential to be slow-release versus rapid-release, depending on the application? For example, someone in sports might need rapid release, while a regular consumer needs a daily dose of a particular vitamin.
Givoni & Szewach: Yes, absolutely. We customize the release mechanism based on the product’s purpose. If it needs to be slow-release, we ensure the base is suited for that. Conversely, we can adjust the formulation for rapid release, often used in the sports sector.
Jacobsen: What are potential future adaptations of this technology in a more advanced form?
Givoni & Szewach: The biggest area of future development is in the pharmaceutical space. We’re currently working on getting products through regulatory approval in different regions and continuing to adapt for various medications. We’re also exploring poly-pill options, which combine therapies, to ensure we can reach a much larger audience in the medication space.
Jacobsen: Are there any substances that cannot be taken in a stable gel form and would require a different methodology?
Givoni & Szewach: Some compounds, particularly those administered by injection — subcutaneously or into other regions — are only stable when injected. These substances are not currently a priority for oral dosage forms, so we haven’t tested them in a gel format. However, we may explore these options as we scale in the future.
Jacobsen: Personal question: How did the two of you meet?
Givoni & Szewach: Well, we met in Melbourne, Australia, through a mutual colleague. Nathan and I are from the same city and attended the same school, although we were a few years apart and didn’t know each other back then. Our colleague introduced us, and Nathan was working on a new gel delivery system. The rest, as they say, is history.
Jacobsen: Are there any other areas I still need to cover that should be mentioned for this particular product or technology?
Givoni & Szewach: No, you’ve covered most of the key areas related to the business. Your questions have allowed us to address everything important.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Simon and Nathan, thank you both very much for your time today.
Givoni & Szewach: Thank you, Scott. We appreciate the opportunity.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/02
Yahya Ekhou is an author, human rights activist, and political campaigner from Mauritania. He holds a master’s degree in NGO Management. He is the founder and President of the Network of Liberals in Mauritania. Among his notable achievements is the 2017 Arab Youth Excellence Award, presented in Cairo, Egypt, by the League of Arab States and the Arab Youth Council. He frequently participates in international conferences.
His autobiography, *Freie Menschen kann man nicht zähmen* (Free People Cannot Be Tamed), was published in German on December 1, 2022.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What came first for you: the atheism or the need to freely express yourself?
Ekhou: As an author and human rights defender, my journey towards atheism and the need to express myself freely has been intertwined yet distinct in their origins and development.
The need to freely express myself came first. From a young age, I recognized the power of words and the importance of sharing my thoughts, experiences, and perspectives without fear of repression. Growing up, I saw how suppressing ideas and voices led to stagnation and injustice. This realization ignited a passion for defending the fundamental human right of freedom of expression. I believed, and still believe, that everyone should be free to voice their beliefs and challenge the status quo without facing persecution.
Atheism came later, after deep reflection and a quest for understanding. As I explored various religious beliefs and philosophies, I gravitated towards skepticism and a reliance on reason and empirical evidence. My commitment to human rights and freedom of expression further reinforced my atheism, as I encountered instances where dogmatic beliefs were used to justify the suppression of dissent and the violation of individual rights.
Thus, while the need to express myself freely was the initial spark, it was through this freedom that I came to embrace atheism. Both elements are now integral to my identity and work, reinforcing the other in my pursuit of a more just and open society.
Jacobsen: Is the idea of atheism as a mental deformity common in your upbringing?
Ekhou: I grew up in a society where the dominant narrative was tightly controlled, especially concerning matters of belief. Atheism was rarely spoken of openly, and when it was, it was often in the hushed tones of fear or derision. In the world of my childhood, atheism was framed not as a legitimate worldview but as a dangerous heresy, a “mental deformity,” as you put it. This wasn’t simply the view of religious authorities but embedded in the fabric of the state and society itself.
To challenge belief was seen as a challenge to the very order of things. People who questioned the existence of God were branded as broken, misguided, or even treasonous, as if doubt itself were a contagion to be stamped out. It wasn’t until much later when I had access to broader perspectives and was no longer under the yoke of authoritarian control, that I could reflect on the idea of atheism and, indeed, on faith itself as something deeply personal and complex, not simply a deformity of the mind.
In my case, atheism became a symbol of rebellion. In prison, stripped of my citizenship and my right to belong, I realized that the rejection of imposed belief was also the rejection of imposed identity. So, no, atheism was not common in my upbringing, but it became an expression of rebellion and freedom of thought.
Jacobsen: When you call atheism an instinct, do you mean it’s the default at birth and then religion imposes a theistic concept on it?
Ekhou: When I refer to atheism as an instinct, I am speaking less about it as a philosophical stance and more about a fundamental state of being an absence of belief, a natural default, if you will. Yes, at birth, before language and dogma mould us, we begin with curiosity, a sense of wonder at the world, and a complete lack of imposed narratives.
Only later, through the hands of family, society, and institutions, we are shaped into believers. Like all beliefs, theistic concepts require instruction and ritual to take root. They require repetition, reinforcement, sometimes fear and often love. Without this, I believe we remain in a state of openness, not yet grasping for the answers religion provides.
In this way, atheism or, perhaps more accurately, non-theism, feels like the default setting of human consciousness. It’s not a rejection but an unformed question, an instinctual skepticism that exists before the imposition of structured belief. Religion, while offering answers, can often smother that original curiosity under layers of doctrine.
In exile, I’ve had the chance to reflect on what we are born with versus what we are taught. Religion is powerful, no doubt, but it must be fed constantly. It must be nurtured by the systems that propagate it. Without those systems, the instinct of atheism of questioning, of not knowing, quickly returns.
Jacobsen: What was the overwhelming bad that influenced the decision to leave it?
Ekhou: Leaving Islam was not a decision I made lightly. It was not born of a single moment of doubt but rather the accumulation of years of lived experiences, intellectual struggle, and, most of all, the overwhelming clash between the values I cherished and the oppressive interpretations of religion that dominated my society.
One of the most glaring influences on my decision was the way Islam, at least as it was practiced and enforced by those in power, became an instrument of control. I witnessed firsthand how religious authorities, often hand in hand with the state, used faith to justify repression. The language of morality and divine will was twisted to silence dissent, criminalize free thought, and dehumanize those who did not fit into their rigid mould. My imprisonment and eventual exile were not simply personal tragedies; they were manifestations of a broader system that wielded religion as a weapon against individual freedom.
Then, there was the treatment of women, minorities, and anyone who dared to live outside the bounds of prescribed norms. I could not reconcile the concept of a just, merciful God with the brutality I saw in the application of laws that relegated women to second-class status, marginalized those of different faiths or beliefs, and suppressed personal freedom in the name of religious purity. The Qur’an speaks of justice, yet in practice, the power structures seemed built on inequality, sanctioned by religious doctrine.
Another overwhelming influence was the intellectual stagnation I experienced within the religious framework. Questions about the nature of God, the contradictions in religious texts, and the moral complexities of the modern world were met not with open discussion but with dogma. The insistence on blind faith and the rejection of inquiry felt suffocating. I came to believe that Islam, at least as it was interpreted in my homeland, was not a space where genuine intellectual freedom could flourish. The more I questioned, the more I was punished, not just physically but socially, emotionally, and spiritually.
Finally, there was personal disillusionment with the idea that belief alone could provide meaning or salvation. The rituals, prayers, and obligations began to feel hollow when the core values of compassion, justice, and humanity were lost beneath layers of rigid dogma. Faith, in theory, is meant to elevate the human spirit. Still, in my experience, it became a cage, one I had to escape to preserve my own identity, my sense of self and my commitment to the values I hold dear.
Jacobsen: How were you asked not to ask questions about Islam?
Ekhou: I remember well the first time I was told not to ask questions about Islam. It wasn’t a moment of explanation or gentle guidance but a harsh rebuke, much like the one you describe. I had asked something seemingly innocent at the time: why, if God was all-merciful, were people condemned to eternal punishment in hell? It seemed a natural question to me, a child grappling with justice and mercy. But the response I received was far from reassuring. The Imam narrowed his eyes, his voice sharp as he told me, *”You are not to question the will of God. Just pray and follow the rules, or you will lose your way.”*
I was stunned, silenced, but not satisfied. At that moment, I realized that the space for questioning was unwelcome and forbidden. I was told that my role was to submit, not think. I began to sense that faith, in its standardized form, was more about obedience than understanding.
That was the beginning of my own search for answers. But instead of finding clarity in religious texts, I found contradictions. I wrestled with the very questions you raised. Does religion unite us or divide us? The Qur’an speaks of unity, of the brotherhood of believers, but this unity was contingent upon belief, upon submission. It became clear that this so-called unity came at the cost of excluding anyone who did not conform. For the non-believers and those who questioned, there was no place but literal or spiritual exile.
As I delved deeper, I found that the division between “believer” and “infidel” was not just a theoretical concept but a weapon. It justified the marginalization of those who did not fit the mould. It allowed the powerful to maintain control over the masses, using religion as a tool to divide the world into *us* and *them*. The idea that religion unites us felt like a hollow promise, one that rang false in the face of the real-world divisions I saw growing around me.
The more I searched for answers, the more I encountered resistance from religious authorities and the very structure of belief itself. In its institutional form, Islam demanded faith without question and loyalty without thought. And for someone like me, whose instinct was to ask, explore, and challenge, it became increasingly clear that I would never find peace in a system that punished curiosity.
I was not looking to reject faith outright; I was searching for meaning, for a truth that felt just. But every time I asked, I was met with fear of doubt, fear of uncertainty, fear of freedom. And so, like you, I embarked on a journey that led me away from the certainty of religion and into the vast unknown, where questions are not only allowed but necessary for growth.
Jacobsen: How did you find information in a context in which freedom of informational access
was it more limited?
Ekhou: Accessing information in a tightly controlled society is not just a challenge; it’s an act of resistance. When the state, religious authorities, and even cultural norms conspire to restrict your mind, every question becomes a rebellion, every book an escape route. Like you, I searched for answers in an environment that allowed only a narrow range of acceptable thoughts.
As much as it promised access to the world’s knowledge, the internet was heavily censored where I lived. Sites critical of religion were blocked, and even attempts to search for secular or alternative viewpoints could mark you as suspicious. Libraries, too, were curated to reflect a certain ideological purity. It often felt like I was surrounded by walls built to keep minds from wandering too far from the sanctioned path.
Yet, like you, I managed to find cracks in those walls. My discovery of the Mu’tazila — a rationalist school of thought in Islamic history — was a revelation. Their belief in reason, in the idea that God’s justice must be rational and understandable, starkly contrasted to the blind obedience demanded by the religious authorities around me. Tracking down their writings wasn’t easy. I found scraps and pieces of their philosophy in old texts or obscure online forums. It was as if these ideas, though buried and forgotten by mainstream Islam, had survived in the shadows, waiting for seekers like us to rediscover them.
The Mu’tazilah’s belief that humans have free will and that morality must be rooted in reason rather than fear resonated deeply with me. Their rejection of fatalism — of the idea that everything is predestined and unquestionable — was something I had long felt but had never been able to articulate. These were the first seeds of doubt that began to take root in my mind, and I knew then that there were other ways to approach faith, morality, and the world.
But it wasn’t until a friend studying abroad sent me a USB drive with a PDF of *The God Delusion* by Richard Dawkins that my intellectual world truly opened up. Dawkins’ work gave me language for my doubts, language that I hadn’t been able to find in my restricted environment. The idea that belief in God could be questioned scientifically, that religion wasn’t beyond critique, was both liberating and terrifying. In *The God Delusion*, I found answers and permission to ask questions I had been afraid to ask for so long.
That USB drive was a lifeline, a connection to a world of thought I had been cut off. It reminded me that, despite the censorship and restrictions, knowledge finds a way to flow. Friends studying abroad, underground networks, VPNs, and even whispers of forbidden books — all of these became part of my journey toward intellectual freedom.
Censorship can control access to information but cannot fully control the human desire for understanding. In the end, that desire drove me to seek out alternative ideas, to push past the walls that had been built around me. I found the tools I needed to free my mind in the writings of the Mu’tazila and in the works of thinkers like Dawkins. But more than that, I found a sense of community with those who, like us, dared to ask questions in societies that forbid them.
Jacobsen: Are there any moves to change Article 5 and Article 306 in the Mauritanian Penal Code?
Ekhou: As of now, any significant moves to change Article 5 and Article 306 in the Mauritanian Penal Code still need to be completed, though there are rumblings of discontent from civil society and human rights organizations. These articles are among the most controversial in the country, especially for those of us who have experienced firsthand the heavy hand of the state when it uses religion as a tool for punishment and control.
Article 306, in particular, which prescribes death for apostasy and harsh punishments for blasphemy, stands as a stark symbol of the fusion between religious doctrine and state power. I was imprisoned under the shadow of such laws, stripped of my citizenship for speaking out and questioning the very foundations of a system that criminalizes free thought and dissent. In a country where these laws are seen as immutable reflections of Sharia, any effort to reform or remove them is met with resistance not just from the government but from powerful religious authorities who guard their influence over the social and legal fabric of Mauritania.
Article 5, which solidifies Islam as the foundation of law in Mauritania, is another barrier to change. It is enshrined in the constitution, and any suggestion of altering it is treated as a direct attack on the nation’s identity. It’s important to understand that religion is more than a personal matter; it is deeply intertwined with the state’s legitimacy in Mauritania. Questioning Article 5 is questioning the very framework of governance.
Despite this, brave voices within the country and in the diaspora continue to push for reform. Human rights groups, both local and international, have highlighted how these laws are used to silence dissent, stifle freedom of expression, and persecute individuals for their beliefs or lack thereof. Cases like that of Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir, a young Mauritanian blogger sentenced to death under Article 306 for alleged blasphemy, have drawn international attention to the harshness of these laws and the urgent need for change. His eventual release after years in prison showed that, with enough pressure, cracks can appear in the otherwise rigid legal system.
But make no mistake, these efforts are met with fierce opposition. Any attempt to reform or challenge the religious underpinnings of the law is labelled as an affront to Islam, an attack on national identity. The government, fearing backlash from conservative elements within society, often walks a tightrope between appeasing religious leaders and maintaining its international image.
It is frustrating and heartbreaking for those of us in exile to watch this slow, often stagnant process. Article 5 and Article 306 are not just legal provisions. They are symbols of a deeper struggle between modernity and tradition, between human rights and theocratic control.
Jacobsen: What was the script of the fatwa to kill you?
Ekhou: The fatwa calling for my death arrived like a hammer blow, though in many ways, I had long anticipated it. When you live in a society where dissent is met with fury and where the fusion of state and religion gives clerics the power to condemn with divine authority, you know that every word and every act of defiance brings you closer to that moment.
The script of the fatwa was chilling in its simplicity and finality. It was written in the language of religious law, but the intent was unmistakably political. It declared that I had “committed acts of apostasy” by questioning the divine law and “spreading ideas contrary to Islam,” which, in their eyes, amounted to nothing less than blasphemy. It stated that I had “publicly rejected the faith” and was guilty of promoting “ideas of atheism and secularism” that posed a threat to the moral fabric of the nation. My writings, they claimed, led people away from God, and for that, there was only one prescribed punishment: death.
The fatwa was not issued by a lone cleric. It bore the weight of religious authority, signed by multiple high-ranking figures in the country’s religious council. These men, many of whom I had once respected in my youth, now saw fit to mark me for death. The language was cold and calculated. I was stripped of my humanity in their eyes, reduced to a symbol of heresy, a danger to be eradicated.
What was most painful was not just the death sentence itself, though, of course, that was terrifying. It was the realization that I had been so thoroughly dehumanized that my execution was presented as a pious act, an obligation. I no longer had a family, story, or dreams. It was a problem to be solved.
The fatwa comes after demonstrations demanding my killing and accusations of blasphemy. My writings, activism, and insistence on questioning the fusion of religion and state had long made me a target. But seeing it written out in such stark, unambiguous terms that my life was forfeit, that my death was not only justified but necessary, was a moment of profound reckoning.
But here’s the thing: while that fatwa called for my silence, it did the opposite. It made me more determined than ever to keep speaking, writing, and fighting. They wanted to snuff out my voice, to erase my existence as if it would somehow preserve their fragile hold on power. But words, once spoken, cannot be taken back. And even under the threat of death, I will not let them have the last word.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling when your Mauritanian citizenship was revoked?
Ekhou: The day my Mauritanian citizenship was revoked, I felt a strange, suffocating mixture of anger and grief. It’s hard to describe the experience of being stripped of something fundamental to your identity, not just as a legal designation but as the place that shaped who you are. Citizenship is supposed to be a bond between you and your country, a recognition that no matter what, you belong. But in that moment, I realized the country I had fought for, the country I had hoped to help change, no longer considered me one of its own.
There was rage, too. Rage at the hypocrisy of a regime that claims to govern in the name of justice and faith but that punishes its own people for thinking, for questioning, for trying to bring about a better society. To revoke my citizenship wasn’t just a legal maneuver. It was an act of erasure. They wanted to make me invisible, to silence me not just physically but to erase my presence from the national consciousness. In their eyes, I was no longer Mauritanian, no longer entitled to the rights, protections, or even the recognition that comes with being part of a nation. They made it clear: I didn’t belong.
So, while it hurt deeply to lose my citizenship, it also marked the beginning of a new chapter in my life. No longer bound by the state that tried to control and silence me, I became freer in my activism and more resolute in my mission. They may have taken away my official identity as a Mauritanian. Still, they could not take away my voice, memories, or love for the people and the culture that remain deeply a part of who I am. In exile, I continue to speak out, to fight for the freedom of those who remain voiceless, because even without citizenship, I am still bound to the land and the people who shaped me.
Ultimately, they can revoke my citizenship, but they can never take away my identity. I will forever be the son of the desert.
Jacobsen: How can individuals or organizations contact you?
Ekhou: Individuals or organizations can contact me through my official email at: contact@yahyaekhou.com
Jacobsen: Again, thank you for the opportunity and time, Yahya.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/01
*Transcript edited for readability.*
Claudia Culley is a journalism and public relations student at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and the Editor-in-Chief of The Runner. She enjoys hiking, baking, and making pottery in her spare time. The Runner has faced a petition calling for several changes to its structure and function and even cessation of its existence. The case has been covered by Mornings with Simi, The Runner (also here), theVancouver Sun, and MSN. PIPS is the umbrella organization for Pulp MAG and The Runner. Kwantlen Student Association: KSA is a non-profit organization incorporated under the Society Act, independent of Kwantlen Polytechnic University. This narrative begins with reportage on activities of the KSA by the staff of The Runner, with the public chapter beginning with a petition.
The current Kwantlen Student Association[1] Executives:
KSA Executives
Yashanpreet Guron – President & Vice President of Student Life
Yugveer Gill – Vice President of University Affairs
Paramvir Singh – Vice President External Affairs
Simranjot Sekhon – Vice President Finance & Operations
Ishant Goyal – Associate President
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Claudia Culley. She’s the current editor-in-chief of The Runner. For a long time, I’ve always wondered why when Kwantlen means “tireless runner,” you would name it Kwantlen Runner, as in “The Tireless Runner” Runner, but there you go.
Claudia Culley: Yes, earlier this year, we were reporting on pretty much everything the KSA was doing, mainly what they had been approving in council meetings. That is the basis of our reporting on the KSA—recounting everything in their council meetings. I’d almost describe it as an explanation of the meeting minutes before publication.
There were leaked email threads between the president and their legal counsel at the time, where the legal counsel essentially said, ‘You hired your friend as executive director, and we can’t stand by this. So we’ll no longer serve you as your legal counsel.’ That was another story we worked on earlier this year.
Besides that, much of our reporting comes from council meetings. The current council for the 2024 to 2025 term experienced much dysfunction when they started their term. Not everyone agreed with each other.
For example, it took them until the end of June to form an executive committee two months into their term. So, yes, we were reporting on that. Additionally, we reported on what they were spending money on.
Jacobsen: So, boilerplate—it sounds like the regular, standard–and, having been on student council before–somewhat boring reporting indicates the general tone, content, and delivery of the student association’s meetings.
That’s good, as it should be—boilerplate and boring. As we all know, if something’s exciting, it’s typically not a good thing in a journalist’s life. Regarding the bylaws and The Runner, there’s currently a firm separation where members of the student association cannot be members of The Runner’s board. This separation allows for editorial independence, in my opinion. It is supported by bylaws that separate the student association from the student newspaper.
Has this ever been challenged before?
Culley: To my knowledge, no. It might have been, but I’m not aware of it. The petition we received called for bylaw 11 in the PIPS’ bylaws to be removed, allowing KSA councillors to be on PIPS’s board and work for The Runner or Pulp Mag.
Jacobsen: If this is done, it seems to explicitly raise ethical issues around a conflict of interest if the student association is paying someone, is part of the student association, and is also part of the board of a student newspaper that reports on the student association. These types of situations, in my opinion, could not be viewed objectively at that point. You could still have objective reporting, but the overarching environment might show a pattern of conflict of interest, at least on paper, if not explicitly.
Culley: It would be a significant conflict of interest for any KPU or KSA elected official or representative because even at The Runner, when we hire staff, we check to ensure they have no conflicts of interest. Suppose any of our reporters are covering the KSA and are also heavily involved in it. In that case, that is a conflict of interest. Our newspaper would no longer be as independent as it currently is. We need full autonomy for our reporting to be completely truthful. I could see things being swayed in that case.
Jacobsen: You’ve received some support from journalism instructor Chad Skelton. He has voiced this in print. Have there been other notable faculty members or students who have expressed support for The Runner?
Culley: Yes, recently, I’ve had many people emailing me, both from within the journalism community and students, voicing their support for The Runner, which has been kind. I’ve seen much support, with personal emails being sent to me and online posts, like on Twitter (here). So that’s been nice.
Jacobsen: Another amendment is being proposed regarding limiting the time the media has in KSA meetings. So, let’s call this limited time. How would this affect the depth of reporting students might receive in the student newspaper?
Culley: The KSA wants to change their own bylaws to allow the media to only record the first five minutes if permitted to enter the meeting. Currently, when we attend KSA meetings, we record the entire thing. We have an audio recording of the full meeting. This audio recording is important to ensure our reporting is as factual as possible. We can go back, listen to the conversations, and quote people properly. It also provides proof that these events happened. So, if anyone questions something we wrote or something that was approved, we have physical evidence to prove it. Without an audio recording of the whole meeting, I’m sure we could still report accurately by taking notes and writing down what people say. But we wouldn’t have that evidence if students wanted to verify the truth or request proof. We would then have to rely on the minutes published by the KSA. So yes, it would affect our ability to prove what is true to students.
Jacobsen: Also, there’s a call to delete all mention of the Kwantlen Student Association in The Runner, in addition to the call for the dissolution of The Runner. So, what is your interpretation of this?
Culley: Yes, I was a little shocked by it. I don’t know what to make of it, to be honest. Though I don’t have proof of who was behind the petition, I’m assuming there are certain things we’ve published about the KSA that some people would like to see disappear. So, they’re aiming to get rid of that history. It would be tragic if all of our reporting, in general and specifically on the KSA, were removed and deleted. People need to be made aware of past activities with the KSA.
Jacobsen: So, I’ve got a few more questions. I’m looking at some of the facts here. There’s also a call for extending executive terms from one to two years. So, two questions there: What does this raise about transparency and student representation when associate degrees and other programs can be one or two years, and bachelor’s degrees are four years? Students may be there quickly, so doubling the term length is a significant change. Also, you mentioned that some people in the KSA might like something other than what’s being written. Is there a dissenting opinion within the KSA about this recent call?
Culley: Yes. So, university students pursuing a diploma would have different opportunities to be part of the student council. I can see both sides of it. Having the council serve a two-year term makes sense because, most of the time, the elected representatives spend much of their term learning their roles and responsibilities. Two years makes sense to give them time to fully understand their position and how everything is structured, allowing them to do more good work as student representatives. However, it also takes away opportunities for other students to get involved and learn about the student association.
Another thing, as a student myself, is that I see the most awareness about the KSA being spread around campus during election periods because students are campaigning, and there are posters everywhere about the elections. So, there’s a lot of talk about the KSA during the general elections. I see how not having general elections every year, but every two years, could impact student awareness. The next general election would occur in 2027, allowing the current council to serve for three years. This might affect how much students know about the KSA because elections won’t happen yearly. Students will only have pop-up events, tabling events, or other resources to learn about the KSA instead of the annual general elections.
Jacobsen: And to be clear, to refresh my memory, PIPS runs the Runner PULP Mag. So, the bylaw changes would affect PIPS itself, which would, in turn, dissolve PULPMag and The Runner simultaneously.
Culley: Yes, that’s right.
Jacobsen: So, this is a significant call from one petition. We have a change of term limits from one to two years. We have the dissolution of two major publications with a longer history at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Also, there is a concern about a lack of editorial independence with KSA executives potentially being on the board of The Runner, as well as reduced transparency in KSA meetings where the media would have less time to be present. These issues raise a consistent concern about freedom of the press at the post-secondary level.
How would these bylaw changes also affect student rights and issues around transparency in funding? For instance, if an individual is on the KSA and The Runner or PIPS board, how would that affect transparency on financial issues? Would there also be a financial conflict of interest there?
Culley: Yes, that’s a good question. PIPS is funded by the university collecting the publication fee, which is then given to the KSA, which channels it to us. I see a situation where we might face some challenges receiving our funding if the PIPS board has KSA elected officials. Currently, our operations manager at PIPS and the board members ensure we receive our funding every semester in chunks. But I could see that potentially being affected.
Also, at The Runner and PULP, all contributing students receive compensation for the articles we publish. If we want to make changes regarding compensation, it needs to be approved by the board members. So, I could see changes with funding or decisions about who gets paid and how much, even though our operations manager oversees all of that. She handles all the payments. However, I believe the PIPS board members can remove the operations manager. So, that could be another issue—they could replace her with someone who might handle finances differently. I could see changes in how we’re funded and how we compensate our contributors. Right now, we pay everyone equally.
Jacobsen: The PIPS contribution from KPU students is 75 cents per credit.
Culley: Yes.
Jacobsen: That’s a little bit of money. Most students don’t seem to care. If they’re concerned, some who do can email office@runnermag.ca to opt out of the fee. Is that correct?
Culley: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, how many students have opted out?
Culley: Oh, not many. Over my time at The Runner, maybe two students a year opt out. It only happens sometimes.
Jacobsen: So, I assess that it’s negligible.
Culley: Yes.
Jacobsen: Most students seem comfortable with 75 cents per credit. This brings us to the reason for this phone call in the first place, which is what raised this issue in the public eye—the petition. First, 150 signatures is a decent amount for a student petition, so credit those organizing it. However, there seems to have been some reporting that many of the student IDs submitted were invalid.
So, what’s happening there?
Culley: Yes, we received the petition, which had 150 signatures. We immediately gave it to KPU to verify the student signatures and check whether the student IDs were valid. I am trying to remember the exact number, but many of the signatures needed to be validated student numbers; they were made up. Additionally, of the valid student numbers, we found that some students who signed the petition didn’t even know they were signing something to dissolve PIPS.
There are two stories I’ve been hearing from students. One is that they thought it was a sign-up sheet for a trip to Cultus Lake; they were told to sign the form, which would lead to a trip there. They didn’t know it had anything to do with dissolving PIPS. The other story is that they were told it was related to student politics and to sign quickly. Some of the signatures are valid, but not all are informed signatures. Some students signed the petition without knowing it was to eliminate PIPS.
Because of this, we’ve decided the petition is questionable. We need to find out how genuine it is and if this is something the students who signed up want. So, we’ve decided not to act on the petition. It’s calling for a special general meeting to have students vote on the resolutions. Still, after learning that students were misled into signing, we believe there’s an ulterior motive behind it. I should also mention that there was no reason given on the petition for why PIPS should be dissolved—there was no explanation whatsoever.
So, yes, because of that, we think there’s an ulterior motive at play, and we won’t act on the petition.
Jacobsen: Apart from the speculative frame at the end, if many of the student IDs are invalid to the point that the number of valid signatures drops below 100, that would be insufficient to reach the threshold for a special general meeting of PIPSC, correct?
Culley: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, the concerns are not only about the numbers but also about free, prior, and informed consent regarding the petition and the dissolution of PIPS, which would also affect The Runner and PULP Mag.
Culley: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: I’ve covered most of the major points. Did I miss anything?
Culley: Oh, I don’t think so. There’s one thing I had a question about, and you might already know this. I wanted to make sure. We’ve talked about four main concerns. First is the petition’s motion to dissolve PIPSC and remove Bylaw 11, which allows council members to be part of the PIPS board. Those are the two things on the petition.
However, the bylaw changes to extend KSA council terms to two years and limit media recording to the first five minutes of council meetings are separate bylaw changes the KSA proposes in their bylaws at their own SGM. So, they’re not all tied to the same petition; they’re separate issues. You might know that already, but I wanted to make sure.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time, Claudia.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, it looks like it was a complete slaughter against the Democrats.
Rick Rosner: As far as I know—and I haven’t checked in the last half hour—Harris isn’t even leading the popular vote. I thought it was impossible for Trump to win the popular vote.
I assume that when the West Coast votes come in, she might even it up, but she’s already lost two of the seven swing states, and four others are leaning Trump by a few percentage points. It’s bad. The Republicans have taken the Senate. I haven’t checked, but the Democrats were supposed to reclaim the House. I’m not sure if that’s happening.
JSo, Trump will be president, and he’ll pardon himself. He has floated a number of ideas, including deporting all undocumented immigrants, starting with what he calls the “million worst.” By that, he means he believes there are a million criminal undocumented immigrants in the U.S. From reading various cases, I know that “criminal” can be defined as something as minor as a DUI. That could get you deported under a Trump regime.
The infrastructure needed—police and immigration enforcement—to deport a million people would be significant. The question is whether he’ll actually do it or have the legislative power to do so. He’s not politically skilled, but with control of the House and Senate, he could push through some measures.
Will he try to replace some taxes with tariffs or implement a national sales tax? Carole and I will accelerate our plans to find a place to live in England. According to their immigration laws, we can stay for six months at a time. Maybe we don’t buy a place—maybe we rent.
Would that actually protect us from anything? It probably means you’ll buy less micro mosaic stuff since moving around to avoid an unpleasant regime is logistically harder when you have a lot of belongings to manage. What do you think about this entire situation? You’ve been in Ukraine, which, while not under a repressive regime, is at war with one.
Jacobsen: The first target here was largely women’s rights, starting with the Roe v. Wade overturn.
Rosner: There are extensive plans to make America more Christian-oriented in its laws. This is problematic because we should be focusing on tech and innovation. The best way to maintain our global standing is by selling tech—robots, AI, and other advancements—to the world. Yet, the Republicans want to de-emphasize education.
They don’t value education much. They push for defunding public education and redirecting those funds toward what they call “school choice,” which includes charter schools and Christian schools. You don’t necessarily get a quality education being homeschooled, attending a Christian school, or being in public schools that have had their budgets slashed by 30%. At a time when we should be prioritizing STEM education like we did in the sixties, we’re going to lose ground because Trump will roll back regulations related to climate change.
With climate change, maybe we’ll get lucky in some way, since birth rates are declining and people aren’t having as many kids. By 2060, the population might level out, and the per capita carbon footprint in the U.S. could decrease by 1% annually thanks to tech advancements and telecommuting trends. So, despite Trump doing nothing about climate change, our distractions—entertainment and social media—might indirectly help mitigate its impact. But having someone who supports ignorance running the country for another four years is terrible. He might also get the chance to appoint up to two more Supreme Court justices, since Alito and Thomas are in their seventies and may retire under a Republican president.
That could mean Trump appoints justices in their late forties who, with modern medical advancements, could stay on the bench for 50 or 55 years. Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh could be around that long too. It’s grim.
Jacobsen: Do you think the U.S. is moving towards becoming a more overtly Christian nation? Do you think we’ll become more authoritarian?
Rosner: Yes, Carole is worried about all the anti-Trump tweets I’ve posted. She’s concerned I’ve made myself a target.
Jacobsen: Do you think that’s a valid concern?
Rosner: But everyone will be a target.
Jacobsen: Everyone?
Rosner: Yes. With AI, the administration can analyze massive amounts of data.
Jacobsen: So, you’re saying someone in the Trump administration might be smart enough to use AI to identify enemies?
Rosner: That’s already been suggested. They’ll use it to identify enemies and go after them.
Jacobsen: I heard Vance said something about professors being enemies.
Rosner: Yes, J.D. Vance. He said, ‘Professors are the enemy.’ He framed professors as the enemy, and that’s enough to set the tone.
Jacobsen: Fill that label with any other group, and it’s alarming. Does that worry you?
Rosner: I don’t think it even needs more planning. If you were an American or lived in the U.S., would you consider relocating? Maybe to California or New York?
Jacobsen: It’s chaotic. Fundamentalist Christians may not be as thrilled as they think they would be. So, a lot of them—I’m sure there are plenty of good-hearted Christians who are appalled. Then say Christians in general, including Christian Catholics.
Rosner: You mentioned fundamentalists.
Jacobsen: Yes. Same category, but I do see them as a bit separate.
Rosner: Should we talk about anything else? Is there more to cover? Maybe there’s a silver lining: Trump is friends with a number of dictators, at least two of whom have nuclear weapons.
Jacobsen: Do you think that lowers the risk of a nuclear conflict?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen:But could it even raise it?
Rosner: Because he’s impulsive? Because he’s 78 and not as sharp as he used to be? The people around him tend to be warmongers. He aligns with other authoritarian perspectives. He campaigned on the idea that during his presidency, the U.S. wasn’t in any wars and that the world wasn’t at war.
Jacobsen: That’s true, but he says a lot of things. We can’t take what he says at face value as a benchmark.
Rick Rosner: So, it’s the day after, and Trump has won. You noticed during our chat before we started taping that I was nodding off because I didn’t get much sleep last night. Carole was freaking out, grabbing me, and asking, “What are we going to do? What’s going to happen?” She was also telling me I need to delete thousands of my tweets out of fear that I might get into trouble with the regime for all the anti-Trump tweeting I did.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: But even if you deleted all your tweets, there’s still an archive. They don’t just disappear.
Rosner: So, yes, it was a disastrous night. Harris came in about 10 million votes below what I expected and lost all the swing states. Liberal America is in shock, and MAGA America is gloating, saying, “We told you so.”
Four more years. On one hand, you hope he’ll be gracious in victory. On the other hand, he won’t be. I was watching Kimmel’s monologue, Seth Meyers, and The Daily Show. They’re all saying the same thing—that it’s going to be bad, but eventually, it’ll end in four years.
What more can we say that we haven’t already said 50 times before? It’s getting repetitive. But I won’t be saying it on Twitter anymore. I used to consider it my responsibility to get people worked up enough about how terrible he is so they would go vote for Harris. That time has passed.
I’m going back to using Twitter for its original, lighthearted purpose—messing up movie titles by changing one letter, like back when Twitter was fun. I just hope that if an information force comes looking for enemies of the state, they don’t search more than a few months back in my Twitter history. From now on, my Twitter is going to be wholesome.
Carole wants to move up our timeline for finding a place to live in England, which means cleaning out this place. It doesn’t make financial sense to leave it vacant while we’re in England. Especially with the upcoming Olympics, there will be a gold rush to rent out homes to wealthy families looking for a place to stay. We could probably get $20,000 a month for our place in 2028. Today, we even threw out an Encyclopedia Britannica to free up a bookshelf. It felt strange to discard all that knowledge, but now all of it fits on our phones.
The LLMs, or Large Language Models, are like tiny encyclopedias—just friendlier. How many of the people watching this have interacted with AIs? They’re not conscious, but they’re friendly and eager to help. They’re a pleasure to interact with. So, what else is there to say? I know what to say: AI. By reelecting Trump, we’ve proven that we can’t be trusted to make good decisions for ourselves. It makes you wish for the rapid advent of AI that subtly guides us with propaganda into doing the least foolish thing.
In this case, that would have meant not voting for Donald Trump. AI isn’t powerful enough yet to achieve that level of influence. But give it five years, and it might be able to sway us into making smarter choices.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think Trump’s first moves will be? What do you think the people around him will do first?
Rick Rosner: There have already been reports that Trump is talking with Putin about the Ukraine war, which would be against an Act, I believe. Anyway, it’s against the law for someone who isn’t yet in office to negotiate political matters with foreign leaders.
But that’s never really stopped Trump, nor has it stopped other people before they officially took office. It’s rare for the Logan Act to be enforced. He has already appointed his chief of staff, who will be the first female chief of staff in U.S. history. Her name is Susie Wiley, a 67-year-old who was apparently instrumental during his campaign. She has stated that she plans to run a tighter ship, where not just anyone can walk in and speak with Trump.
So those are the initial moves or rumored actions. He campaigned and was elected on issues like inflation—capitalizing on public discontent with inflation under Biden—and immigration, focusing on the backlash against the surge of immigration. I don’t expect him to do much about inflation now that it’s down to about 2%, nor do I think he has any strategies to address it. However, many expect him to take credit for the current low inflation. That leaves immigration as the primary area where he’ll act.
His first actions will likely be related to immigration. When he took office for the first time, he implemented a Muslim ban. There are rumors that he might do something similar again. He’s made numerous statements about deporting undocumented immigrants, claiming he’ll remove every undocumented person—over 12 million people—which would be practically impossible due to the scale of infrastructure needed. It would require tens of thousands of additional border agents and massive prison facilities to hold people before deportation, costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
He’s also mentioned a plan to deport the “million worst” undocumented immigrants, which would still involve significant expenses and logistical challenges. This could mean individuals with criminal records, including those with minor infractions like a DUI. Under Trump’s previous administration, people were deported for offenses like driving while impaired. I assume he’ll pursue policies in that direction, but he’ll face logistical and legal obstacles.
Wth the current political landscape, it might be difficult to enact large-scale changes. He has the Senate, which the Republicans have taken back with 52 out of 100 seats. However, they don’t have the 60 seats needed to overcome filibusters. The House results are still pending, but the Republicans are expected to reclaim it, albeit with a slim majority similar to what they have now.
It’s uncertain whether he’ll be able to pass significant legislation related to mass deportations, but immigration will probably be his main focus initially. It’ll likely resemble his previous actions when he was president, as anything larger would require vast resources.
Also, he’s been talking about defunding and dismantling a range of federal agencies, such as the Department of Education and NOAA—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the organization that provides weather forecasts.
Jacobsen: Realistically, given his history, what’s likely?
Rosner: We have to consider what might limit him. Legislatively, he’s somewhat constrained. But another limiting factor is that, despite four years as president, he still lacks significant political experience and tends to appoint extremist individuals who are also not very experienced. His lack of political acumen might limit his ability to implement drastic measures.
I’ve been thinking about that. Maybe he doesn’t aim to be a total dictator, but that feels naïve. With the current Supreme Court, he has more power to push the boundaries than any previous president, except for Biden. The Supreme Court decided that a president has a certain latitude to do things that might be deemed illegal if done by a non-president, as long as they are part of official duties. That ruling came under Biden, but Biden hasn’t used that latitude to do anything criminal. Trump, on the other hand, could leverage this power to prosecute his enemies. He’s almost certainly going to pardon himself from any federal charges.
Jack Smith’s cases against him are reportedly being dismantled, possibly because they won’t lead anywhere with Trump likely to pardon himself from federal charges. What about the state charges in New York for fraud? He’s due to be sentenced on November 26th or 27th.
I’ve heard rumors that even those might be affected. At the very least, he’ll quash any federal charges against him. He’s also said he would pardon the January 6th rioters. About 1,000 of them have been prosecuted, and while it’s unclear if he’ll pardon all 1,000, he’ll certainly pardon some. That could even be a day-one action.
Rick Rosner: So, I know the election was a bummer. Many people, mostly liberals, think Trump will be even worse and more unrestrained this time around. Carol is nervous that the country will become unlivable for us, possibly due to all the critical things I said about Trump on Twitter.
She’s been actively researching how to move to England and even joined an expatriate group on Facebook. But she found out that England has been cracking down on people trying to live there long-term. According to their laws, you can stay for six months but then must leave for another six months. If you repeat this too much, they may block you from returning, as they don’t want people circumventing their immigration laws.
And now they’re strict. If you run afoul of just one border agent, they can block you if they suspect you’re trying to stay too long.
Which is a problem for us because our kid is getting married in England in a few months. She’s marrying a Brit, has a job there, and that’s where her degrees are from. We hoped to move there and be part of their lives, within reason. We even considered buying an apartment.
But I did find out that there’s a way to get a student visa if you’re enrolled in a research-based master’s or PhD program. Research-based means original work and doesn’t necessarily have to be in a lab. If you’re on a student visa for such a program, you can also bring your spouse. That could be an option. I found out that there are nine MPhil programs in creative writing at universities in the UK. I might qualify for one, and being in a program might give me the discipline to write more consistently. It’s tough to get myself to produce writing otherwise.
Rick Rosner: So, here’s a story from high school. In high school, my friends Lon and Dave were cooler than me. They were good-looking guys—so good-looking, in fact, that one of them has a daughter who grew up to become a fairly major movie star. So, in high school, I had friends who were much cooler than I was.
One of them had a family hot tub. I remember being in the hot tub with those guys and at least a couple of girls. Since I didn’t do sports, I wasn’t used to seeing other guys naked. At one point, we all got out of the hot tub and went inside to change out of our swimsuits.
That’s when I noticed my friends had enormous penises. I thought, “What the heck? Why is mine so small?” It wasn’t until months or even years later that I realized what was going on. Because they were the popular, cool guys and I wasn’t, they were getting certain ‘benefits’ in the hot tub under the bubbles. That explained the difference.
Rick Rosner: I’ve been feeling bad about our recent conversations because it’s mostly me complaining about Trump. So, I tried to think more philosophically or metaphysically for a moment. We’ve often talked about the principles of existence and things that can exist, but that made me wonder: what about things that can’t exist? Is there anything productive in thinking about things that are impossible?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have an example. When I interviewed Lawrence Krauss, he spoke as a popularizer of physics with a quasi-philosophical approach to the concept of nothing. His perspective was that, to define nothing, you must first define something. This helps move away from traditional, philosophical, or somewhat religious assumptions of a vast, empty black void.
So, if you want to define nothing, you start by defining something. Understanding the physics of something lets you deconstruct it piece by piece until you reach nothing.
Rosner: I had a similar thought: there are two kinds of things that don’t exist. One type is the things that could potentially exist but are at odds with your current location in the universe.
And the farther you go from where you are—across billions of light-years—you reach things that become less defined relative to you, with less of a shared history. This early, undefined stuff looks ancient because it hasn’t had a chance to co-evolve with you.
I wonder if, quantum mechanically, that’s a complete set of all possible existences and non-existences. Does everything that can either exist or mostly not exist lie on a continuum from 0% existence to 100%—as fully existent as it can be because it’s local to you?
So, that’s thought one. But that wasn’t exactly the Lawrence Krauss thought. I was trying to imagine things that don’t exist. For instance, I pictured Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address, but with one hand extended. Above his hand, hovering an inch above it, is a metallic cube defying gravity. That can’t exist—it contradicts reality. Abraham Lincoln did not give the Gettysburg Address with an outstretched hand holding a hovering metallic cube.
r with eight fingers on one hand while delivering the speech. That makes me wonder: can we only conceive of things that don’t exist by rearranging elements from our imaginations, which are built from things that do exist, into configurations that are absurd or contrary to known reality? What I’m asking is whether everything that doesn’t exist, in this sense, is just a peculiar combination of things that do exist. It seems reasonable to assume that everything we can imagine is derived from things we’ve learned about—things that exist in some form. That’s close to what Krauss was saying.
Though he was talking in much stricter physical terms.
Rosner: No, not at the moment. What else can we talk about?
Rick Rosner: I ran into a friend of mine, who’s quite talkative, at the gym. He was complaining about a guy I’ve had issues with as well. Nowadays, I tend to walk away from trouble at the gym, mostly because I try to avoid conflict in general.
I’ve given up expecting people at the gym to behave as they once did—with basic gym etiquette. That standard has largely disappeared. People in my age group learned about weightlifting from Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became famous in the mid to late 1970s. He brought bodybuilding and weightlifting into mainstream culture. Back then, the generation that frequented gyms adhered to a certain level of gentlemanly behavior. There was a recognized etiquette.
Perhaps it was because many people were lifting significant weights and, with some using performance enhancers like steroids, there was an unspoken understanding to act with respect. Everyone understood the potential consequences of tempers flaring if things went wrong. But that was then. Now, smartphones have disrupted gym behavior because they are so distracting. In the past, inconsiderate behavior was rare.
This shift is also why I don’t get as angry at drivers anymore. Everyone seems to drive poorly these days because the factors contributing to it are pervasive. Smartphones are a major cause, and perhaps the post-pandemic world has impacted people’s focus and patience. Cars now come equipped with large, distracting heads-up displays that don’t necessarily make driving safer. If bad driving is widespread, it’s difficult to single out individuals when everyone seems affected.
I’ve had plenty of frustrating encounters at the gym. For instance, someone will be on their phone, and I’ll stand there waiting to use a machine. This can go on for about three minutes. I typically give people a few minutes or go do a set on a different machine before coming back. When I return, they’re often still on their phone. By now, five minutes may have passed. At that point, I’ll ask, “How many more sets do you have?”—a polite way of suggesting they get moving.
At first, they often won’t hear me. I have to repeat myself a few times because they don’t understand due to their earbuds. On the third try, they finally respond with, “Oh,” followed by the number of sets they have left. “I have three more sets.” I’ll say, “Thank you,” and step back, only for them to return to their phone.
This behavior would be surprising if it weren’t so common. For example, I once watched a girl at the ab machine. She was on her phone, and this went on for quite a while. Eventually, she put her phone down, realizing she needed to do a set. She wasn’t being intentionally rude; she was just acting like many others do these days.
And she sets up to do a set but can’t finish it. She has to look down at her phone, now on the ground. There are two identical machines next to each other. On the other machine, a guy is doing even fewer sets because he has two phones. So, you have to let people be the way they are now.
You can’t fix the world. A guy in a Second Amendment T-shirt approached me while I was waiting for one of the machines and said, “Hey, do you want to work in on here?” I was ecstatic that someone had this level of consideration.
And probably someone who voted for Trump, given his Second Amendment T-shirt. So, there are still some genuinely nice people, even those who voted for him.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, let me ask: ‘Give me three examples of your advanced reasoning and idea development.’ Achievements focusing on advanced reasoning.
Mapping ethical AI. Assessing international agreements. Charting renewable energy. Creating a sustainable urban development plan. Data analysis. Integrated solutions. Economic considerations. Policy development. Formulating a global health policy strategy. It even covers epidemiology.
Rick Rosner: Is it giving you those ideas, or is it just listing areas?
Jacobsen: I’m reading it now; it says, ‘Formulating a global public health strategy.’ It explains that it can develop strategies to address global public health crises like pandemics using epidemiological models. It analyzes infection rates and transmission vectors to predict outbreak patterns. Resource allocation involves determining the optimal distribution of medical supplies to healthcare personnel, and it suggests international collaboration by crafting agreements, preparedness sharing, and coordinated response efforts.
Rosner: Those still sound more like areas it can handle rather than specific, creative ideas. Can you ask it to provide three screenplay concepts that showcase its ability to come up with new ideas?
Jacobsen: Title: The Chronogarden. Genre: Science fiction, drama. Logline: In a secluded garden where time doesn’t flow linearly, a grieving botanist discovers plants that bloom with memories from the future.
A grieving botanist discovers plants that bloom with memories from the future, compelling her to confront choices that could alter her destiny and those of others.
Synopsis: Dr. Arlena Ramirez, a botanist mourning the loss of her daughter, retreats to a remote research facility. There, she stumbles upon a hidden garden where certain plants exhibit anomalous temporal properties, blooming with flowers that hold memories not yet experienced. As Arlena delves into these memories, she glimpses future events impacting herself and strangers linked by fate. When she foresees a catastrophic event in a memory bloom, Arlena faces a moral dilemma: should she intervene to change the future, risking unforeseen consequences, or let events unfold as destined? Her journey becomes a poignant exploration of grief, free will, and the intricate tapestry of time.
Jacobsen: Yes, it generated three examples of the same length and detail.
Rosner: That’s intriguing, but it needs some tweaking regarding the death of her. That connects a bit. It’s pretty good. Go ahead.
Jacobsen: Alright. Next one. Title: Echoes of the Silent Reef. Genre: Adventure, fantasy. Logline: A marine biologist with a hearing impairment discovers an underwater civilization that communicates through bioluminescent patterns, leading to an extraordinary alliance that could save both their worlds from an ecological disaster.
Synopsis: Amara Singh, a talented marine biologist who is deaf, feels out of place in both the hearing and deaf communities. While researching coral bleaching, she encounters ethereal luminescent beings in a hidden reef. Unable to communicate through sound, they share a visual language of light patterns. As Amara learns their way, she uncovers a looming threat: deep-sea mining operations are endangering the reef and the beings’ existence. Together, they devise a plan to reveal the wonders of this underwater world to humanity without exposing the beings to danger. The story celebrates the power of nonverbal communication and the importance of environmental stewardship.
Rosner: That’s… I mean, it sounds like a James Cameron project, but it’s a decent pitch. When you pitch to someone—I’ve never pitched movies, only TV—you usually need more than one idea. Even if you only have one or two ideas worth pitching, walking in with eight ideas is beneficial. This tool could give you another half-dozen, making it seem like you’re an idea machine, and maybe the exec will go for one of the others. This feels like a watershed moment. I’ve never asked an LLM to do this, so if this is a step forward, it feels promising. I’ve been working on my book where the main character is in the entertainment industry, gets booked for various projects, and helps produce content. The pitches you’ve shown me are not much different, maybe a bit more developed than the fictional loglines I’ve been incorporating.
I might need to cheat a bit with an LLM to create some more outlandish future shows. Let’s try for fun—ask it for a couple more loglines for movies we might see in theaters in 2035.
Jacobsen: They’re shorter this time since we asked for loglines.
Title: Synthetic Souls.
Genre: Science fiction drama. In a society where artificial humans download consciousness to serve as laborers, one synthetic discovers remnants of memories that suggest a past life, igniting a quest for identity that could upend the world’s understanding of life and consciousness.
Rosner: That’s Blade Runner.
Jacobsen: Yeah, not overly impressive, but here’s another one. Title: The Last Language. Genre: Adventure, mystery. Amid a global crisis erasing human languages overnight, a linguist and a tech entrepreneur race against time to decode an ancient script that holds the key to preserving communication before humanity is plunged into silence.
Rosner: That’s good.
Jacobsen:Chronicle of Shadows, action, thriller, sci-fi. Logline: Equipped with technology that can manipulate shadows into physical forms, a covert operative must prevent a rogue faction from using the device to plunge the world into eternal darkness.
Eternity’s Children, science fiction, drama. In a future where aging is cured and immortality is the norm, naturally aging children are born, sparking a societal upheaval that reminds humanity of the beauty and necessity of mortality.
The Last Byte (BYT), techno-thriller, action. As the world’s data is consolidated into a single quantum server, a cybersecurity expert discovers a self-aware virus planning to erase digital history, forcing her into a race against time to save the essence of human knowledge.
Rosner: Nice.
Jacobsen:Chrono Nexus, sci-fi adventure. When time portals begin to appear worldwide, connecting past and future eras, a historian and a futuristic engineer team up to prevent a temporal collision that could unravel the fabric of reality.
Rosner: I’ve had that idea in mind—an atomic explosion sends information and objects into the past, causing chaos. But yes, that’s great.
Jacobsen:Echoes of Gaia, environmental sci-fi fantasy. After Earth’s ecosystems collapse, scientists discover that plants have developed the ability to communicate telepathically, offering humanity one last chance to restore the planet through an unexpected alliance.
Rosner: So, yes, these are interesting. It’s used ‘Chrono’ twice in its titles, and it seems to think that future movies will have an ecological theme. You can either agree with that or tell it to lose the eco angle, but I’m sold. It’s a bit sad, though, because people are obviously going to abuse the hell out of this. People like me, or anyone who needs to pitch ideas, are going to mess around with this constantly. And movie execs will do the same. This could become a way for movie executives, who already get overwhelmed with pitches, to sift through hundreds of ideas and inform their understanding of what makes a good or bad pitch, and what trends are oversaturated.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your advice for Hollywood life?
Rick Rosner: One piece of advice is act less. Don’t move your arms around a lot. Don’t show an excessive amount of emotion. Say your lines with just a hint of the emotion you think is appropriate or what the director envisions in that scene. This approach tends to work well because overacting marks an amateur, making them look unconvincing.
So, rule one is to underact. Rule two is if you want to appear as though you’re genuinely listening to someone, look at their face, but let your eyes wander over their entire face. Don’t let your eyes leave their face, but allow them to move across it. When someone is speaking and it’s significant to you, this small action creates the illusion of deep engagement. This technique is useful for conveying investment in what the other person is saying.
Picking up these small tricks, combined with understanding the business side of Hollywood, is crucial, as it’s a place where people can be ruthlessly competitive. Being smart is a huge advantage. In entertainment, intelligence complements talent or can sometimes compensate for a lack of it. If you ask intelligent questions, you can be the interviewer who engages celebrities in a way that highlights their intellect. Many celebrities have time to learn new things, either out of personal interest between projects or with the help of assistants who research and brief them on topics.
Take, for example, George Clooney or Leonardo DiCaprio—they’re known for their knowledge and interests.
Rick Rosner: With four days to go until Election Day, we have early voting continuing through Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. However, many states, especially those with Republican leadership, limit early voting opportunities.
Approximately 68 million people have already voted, which suggests that 80 to 83 million ballots may be received by Election Day. Additionally, around 12 million more might be postmarked before Election Day and counted upon arrival, even if received after Election Day, as 18 states allow for this.
This means we could see up to 93 million early votes cast, which is nearly as high as the turnout during the 2020 election influenced by COVID-19, indicating strong participation. Women are outvoting men by 10%, a trend that remains consistent in most states. Although this advantage may be less significant on Election Day itself, the exact difference is uncertain. If the trend holds and considering that this advantage is often not accounted for in many polls, Harris could perform close to 1% better, which could be crucial in a tight race.
If over 90 million people vote early and day-of voting reaches 65 to 70 million, it would mean record-breaking voter participation. Even if the day-of turnout isn’t as strong, any demographic shift required to counter early voting trends would need to be even more significant given the lower number of voters on Election Day.
In swing states, where polls (despite their potential inaccuracies) indicate that women are outvoting men by 10% to 12% in five out of seven key states, this could be a hopeful sign, though not conclusive, for her chances.
Rosner: Addendum: I haven’t posted this yet, but I’m considering tweeting: Vote for the candidate who seems more appealing, followed by a humorous take on what it might be like to sleep with Trump, portraying him as a tired old man who smells like spoiled milk.
Rick Rosner: So, naturally, I think that Big Bang physics is a theory that has not entirely caught up with observation. Everything is relatively new. Essentially, everything we know about the universe has been learned in the last 100 to 120 years.
The farther away a galaxy is, the more it is redshifted, indicating that we didn’t even figure out the existence of galaxies until the 1920s. The farther away an object is, the younger it appears in the history of the universe. There is quite a bit of evidence that suggests the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.
With all this, including nucleosynthesis and other observational data, we now have a significant amount of new evidence. However, I don’t think the theoretical framework has fully caught up yet. The Big Bang theory accounts for a lot but not everything. Additionally, when it comes to quantum mechanics, I don’t believe our understanding has kept pace with the mathematical and physical descriptions. Quantum mechanics accurately describes physical phenomena, but comprehending its implications and underlying nature has lagged.
For example, information theory and a mathematical definition of information weren’t even developed until about 40 years after the advent of quantum mechanics. So, the idea that quantum mechanics might involve incomplete information may not have fully resonated with those studying it yet.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What mistakes does Carole find amusing?
Rick Rosner: My most recent mistake happened the day before yesterday. We decided to sell some old gold jewelry that had been sitting around unused. I called a place and asked, “What percent of the spot price do you pay?” Spot price is the current market price for gold, which is around $2,710 per ounce—a very high amount. They said if we brought in a Krugerrand, they would pay about $2,610, which is about 96% of the spot price.
Jacobsen: And what happened when you went in?
Rosner: We brought in our scrap 14-karat gold, which they weighed at 17.5 grams. They offered to pay 80% of the spot price. I was confused and said, “Wait, you told me on the phone you pay 96%.” They responded, “That’s for a Krugerrand, not scrap gold.” Carole chimed in, “You misunderstood.” I insisted I’d called, but she was right about the situation. I managed to haggle them up to 83%, but it still wasn’t great.
It was frustrating. I probably should’ve haggled harder. Years ago, when I was making jewelry for Carole, the standard was around 99% of the spot price. 80% is far from that. They reminded me that times have changed, and I got a raw deal. Carole found my miscalculation amusing, maybe more than she should have.
Jacobsen: Any other notable mistakes?
Rosner: Another example was when Carole’s mom needed to move out of her house because she was getting older and it was becoming unsafe for her. We had to decide what to do with the house, and I suggested renting it out. My reasoning was that it would provide income, improvements would be tax-deductible, and we wouldn’t have to pay taxes on the sale right away.
Jacobsen: Did you learn something new during that process?
Rosner: Yes, I didn’t realize at the time that when someone dies—in California and probably most other states—you get a stepped-up basis for the value of the house. Carole’s family bought their house in 1966 for $40,000 or $50,000.
Jacobsen: And when the house finally sold, how much did it go for?
Rosner: It sold for $1.6 million. But we didn’t have to pay taxes on $1,550,000 in capital gains because Carole’s dad passed away in the early 2000s. This meant that Carole’s mom became the sole owner of the house with a stepped-up basis. The “basis” is what you use to calculate capital gains taxes. So, when he died, the house’s value was adjusted up to around $1.1 million, which was its market value at that time.
There was still some mortgage on it, but essentially, we didn’t have to pay capital gains tax on the large increase in value. The taxable basis of the house had risen from the original $40,000–$50,000 they paid for it in 1966 to over $1 million when Carole’s dad died. I didn’t realize this at the time, so my main argument for renting it out to avoid immediate taxes was incorrect.
Jacobsen: And Carole still reminds you of that?
Rosner: Yes, she does, although it didn’t change our final decision. By the time we had to decide, we’d learned about the stepped-up basis and everything else involved. But she notes that I was initially wrong when we were casually discussing our options. Once it was time to make the real decision, we made sure to get all the information.
Jacobsen: Sounds like it worked out in the end, but it’s a funny reminder of how much there is to learn when dealing with these matters.
Rosner: It’s one of those things that sticks as a funny memory.
Rick Rosner: We could discuss early voting in the U.S. About 42 to 43 million people have already voted, with 10 days remaining before the election. That’s a solid turnout.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the numbers for past elections?
Rosner: In 2020, 101 million people voted early. In 2016, 58 million voted early. This year, we’re on track for possibly 80 to 85 million early votes, with about 5 million people voting daily. So breaking 80 million is very achievable.
Jacobsen: That’s impressive, but how does it compare to 2020?
Rosner: It’s a good turnout, though not quite as high as 2020. The 2020 election was unique because states eased voting methods due to COVID-19, making early and mail-in voting easier. Republicans lost that election and were upset by the high turnout since larger turnouts typically benefit Democrats. Republicans generally form a minority but are more reliable voters, so increased accessibility tends to favor Democrats, who may not otherwise be as diligent about voting.
Jacobsen: And Republicans have taken measures since then?
Rosner: Yes, over the past four years, they’ve implemented measures to make voting more difficult. Achieving 80 to 85 million early votes under these stricter conditions would be significant for Democrats and give them a decent shot at defeating Trump.
Jacobsen: What about the concept of “shy Trump voters”?
Rosner: In past elections, particularly 2016 and 2020, some Trump voters were hesitant to disclose their choice to pollsters, leading to underestimations. In 2016, about 15% of voters were undecided, many of whom broke for Trump. This time, only 3% are undecided. Trump outperformed the polls in 2016 and 2020 but underperformed in 2024 primaries. I suspect that more people are simply tired of his antics.
Jacobsen: Do you think this fatigue will impact his base?
Rosner: Possibly. Trump’s behavior over the past four years may discourage some Republicans and Trump-leaning independents from voting. He hasn’t introduced any new ideas, relies on falsehoods, incited a minor insurrection, and has been found liable or guilty by juries eight times in the past year. This includes five grand jury indictments, two jury findings for sexual assault liability, and one jury finding him guilty of fraud. Hardcore supporters dismiss these findings, but voters on the margins may be fatigued.
Jacobsen: If some of those voters are deterred, could that make a difference?
Rosner: Yes, even if just 5% of Trump’s supporters decide not to vote out of exhaustion, it could be pivotal. In 2020, Biden received 81 million votes, while Trump got 74 million, with Biden winning by 7 million. Ten days ago, I predicted 76 million for Harris and 71 million for Trump. I think Harris could lose 5 million votes compared to Biden due to perceptions that inflation is Biden’s fault, while Trump could lose 3 million because it’s difficult to peel away his base, even though he’s polarizing.
Jacobsen: Would a 5 million popular vote win be enough for Harris to secure the electoral vote?
Rosner: It’s uncertain. However, based on strong turnout recently, I’m revising my total voter turnout estimate upwards from 150 million (compared to 158.5 million in 2020) to possibly 152 to 153 million. Harris could pick up 60% of the additional 2 to 3 million votes I’m factoring into my projection.
I’d be delighted if she could replicate Biden’s 7 million popular vote victory. I don’t think she’s there yet, and I’m not sure she will be, but she might break a 5.5 million popular vote win. That would give her a decent shot at winning the electoral vote.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So what was that tweet about again? I remember seeing it. It was about a dirty mask from today, October 26th.
Rick Rosner: Yes, it was about a dirty mask. I had posted a picture of a worn-out mask. I’ll add the tweet link later.
Jacobsen: What was the context?
Rosner: I still wear a mask because COVID is still circulating. Even though we’re in a bit of a lull here in LA, with current COVID levels about one-seventh of what they were five weeks ago, they tend to rise again around Halloween and peak in late December into January. Even during this lull, I continue to mask up, especially since I’m often around people. I go to the gym, and Carole and I even went to a movie today, which we don’t do often since streaming offers so much at home. But we made an exception and saw a movie about Saturday Night Live’s first episode in 1975—it was pretty good.
Jacobsen: So, you try to make your masks last as long as possible?
Rosner: I don’t see any reason to replace them often, especially the ones with two straps that wrap around the head for a tighter fit. They’re harder to find. So, I try to use them until they wear out, even though they can get pretty gross. If I’m careful, I can stretch one mask to last about three or four months. The metal nose piece is usually what fails first, but if I avoid bending it too much, it holds up. The straps turn grayish-brown from rubbing against my hair, and the sides and the bridge of the nose get grimy from air sneaking in around the mask. Sometimes I spill coffee on them, and occasionally I burp into them, too. So, yes, they do get nasty over time.
Jacobsen: Does that affect the mask’s function?
Rosner: No, it doesn’t impact how the mask works; it’s just gross. People don’t usually notice or care, especially at the gym, where I spend most of my time. Even if someone did notice, it wouldn’t matter. I’m just a 64-year-old guy who looks a bit quirky, not James Bond. A dirty mask won’t change that. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Do you maintain basic health standards with exercise and supplements?
Rosner: Yes, I still go to the gym at least five times a week. Recently, I joined another gym near my house, so now I go about six or seven times a week, totaling between 90 and 120 sets per day. As for flossing, I don’t do it as often as I should—it should be twice a day, but I’m lucky if I manage half that. And I still take supplements, though I’ve cut back on the variety a bit. I’ve added a lot of fisetin, which is a senolytic. It supposedly encourages old, dysfunctional cells to self-destruct, reducing the strain on the body and lowering inflammation. I noticed a difference when I started taking it; I didn’t have to wake up in the middle of the night to urinate, which suggests it’s helped clear out my prostate.
As you age, your prostate tends to enlarge, making it harder to empty your bladder completely. The prostate encircles the urethra—the tube that carries urine from the bladder out of the body—and when it swells, it pinches the urethra. This results in incomplete bladder emptying. Since taking fisetin, my symptoms have improved, and I don’t feel the same pressure at night.
And with aging, you often wake up frequently because your bladder feels full, which can disrupt sleep every 90 minutes or two hours. With fisetin, I might only wake up once during the night, or not at all, depending on when I go to bed.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s going on with the Washington Post cancellations?
Rick Rosner: The Washington Post recently chose not to endorse a presidential candidate, which many see as an act of cowardice. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and some speculate that he halted the endorsement to avoid potential repercussions if Trump wins. Trump could use his power to retaliate against the Washington Post and Bezos’s other ventures, like Amazon.
Rosner: Trump has targeted companies before during his last presidency. The LA Times also refused to endorse a candidate because its owner leans toward Trump, which is absurd. Both of these papers have endorsed candidates for decades, and now, when there is a clear choice, they’re too afraid to take a stand.
Jacobsen: How did this impact their readership?
Rosner: About 60,000 people out of 2.5 million subscribers canceled their Washington Post subscriptions in protest. That’s approximately 2.5% of their subscriber base, which is substantial. I did the math, looked up their subscriber numbers, and tweeted about the percentage lost. It’s likely even more now as more people continue to cancel. But Bezos might not care since he has $200 billion in assets outside of the Washington Post.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is from Laurie Kilmartin. She said, “Roast jokes don’t work great outside of a roast.” That’s a solid observation.
Rick Rosner: And there was a comedian involved. So today was Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden, which was full of rhetoric that many felt was hateful toward minorities and immigrants. They had a comedian named Hinch-something whose most notorious joke was about a floating island of garbage in the Atlantic, which he called Puerto Rico.
A lot of people pointed out that this was racist and hateful. Laurie Kilmartin noted that it was a roast joke, and roast jokes don’t work well at political rallies. The joke didn’t land, and it received little laughter. Moreover, people on Twitter highlighted that Pennsylvania has around 450,000 Puerto Ricans, so calling them trash is not only offensive but also foolish. New York City also has a large Puerto Rican community, so making such a statement is senseless.
People were comparing it to the infamous 1939 pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, held by the German American Bund. That rally featured swastikas and promoted the idea that one could support Hitler and still be a proud American. A giant portrait of George Washington hung over the hall at that event. But history proved within a couple of years that supporting Hitler and being American were incompatible.
Jacobsen: So, what are people hoping this time?
Rosner: The hope is that Trump’s rally alienates more people than it inspires. However, it’s challenging to draw any conclusions from early voting data, even though about 43 to 45 million people have already voted, which is a high turnout with nine days to go. This year, Trump has encouraged Republicans to vote early, unlike in 2020 when he discouraged it. In 2020, early voting trends provided clearer insights because Trump’s supporters largely abstained from voting early.
Jacobsen: Why might that change be significant?
Rosner: It could be that Trump believes an early turnout from his base will make it easier for him to claim victory, even falsely, if needed. In 2020, the initial leads in various states depended on whether early votes were counted first or last. In states where early ballots were processed first, Biden jumped out to an early lead. In other states where day-of votes were counted first, Trump initially led, but those leads diminished as early ballots—comprising about 62-63% of total votes—were counted.
Jacobsen: So, what’s different this time?
Rosner: This time, Trump and his team may think early voting will benefit them, or they may have learned from their 2020 missteps. It’s hard to say for sure, but it does make interpreting early voting data more complicated. For instance, Nevada seems problematic for Democrats, but it’s uncertain. If Republicans have already cast most of their votes early, it might not be as bad as it looks.
Jacobsen: What about Georgia?
Rosner: Georgia is promising. The early voting turnout there is already 57% of the total votes cast in 2020. While not all states are expected to match their 2020 turnout, Georgia’s numbers are significant. Additionally, women are outvoting men in early ballots by 11.5%, which bodes well for Democrats. North Carolina, on the other hand, appears to be a toss-up. The other swing states are still uncertain.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When was the last time you went to synagogue, Rick?
Rick Rosner: The last time was for my mom’s memorial, over two years ago. Besides that, I haven’t been back. But we did watch No One Will Watch This, which is about Jews and stars Kristen Bell and Adam Brody on Netflix.
Jacobsen: Why the transition from the memorial to Kristen Bell?
Rosner: Because that’s the most Jewish thing I’ve done in years. It’s a show where Kristen Bell plays a young-ish woman with a sex and dating podcast who falls in love with a rabbi, played by Adam Brody, known from The OC years ago. It was pretty good.
Jacobsen: I see. So, what do you think are the requirements for Reform Judaism in terms of synagogue attendance?
Rosner: Not much, really. You should go on the High Holy Days—Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
Jacobsen: But you haven’t even gone for those lately, have you?
Rosner: No, we haven’t. The last time I went for Rosh Hashanah was decades ago. We used to attend services when we were members of a temple so that Isabella could go to Sunday school. But that was about 15 years ago.
Jacobsen: So how do you celebrate the High Holy Days outside of the synagogue?
Rosner: This year, I went to a Rosh Hashanah dinner at cousin Kenny’s house, and we said a couple of prayers.
Jacobsen: What did you pray for?
Rosner: They weren’t personal prayers; we just said blessings for the holiday.
Rick Rosner: Let’s ask ChatGPT: “What are three significant technological advances expected within the next five years?”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s a reasonable way to phrase it.
“What are three significant technological advances expected within the next five years?” Responses include widespread adoption of artificial intelligence and automation, breakthroughs in quantum computing, and advances in personalized medicine and biotechnology.
Rosner: Let’s focus on the third one, given what we discussed earlier. What do you envision with regards to personalized medicine and biotechnology?
Jacobsen: Personalized medicine will likely involve tailored medical treatments and gene therapy systems connected to CRISPR gene-editing technologies. One aspect could be the development of more targeted cancer therapies. Every type of cancer has unique structures on its surface that affect how easily immune cells can detect, grab, engulf, and kill it. For the immune system to attack cancer, it needs to recognize which cells are cancerous. Some cancers have distinct surface markers that the immune system can learn to identify, enabling the production of the necessary receptors to detect and attack them.
Rosner: Newer gene therapy techniques can expand the range of surface structures that can be targeted by the immune system. This is already occurring but currently only addresses certain types of cancer. Cancer is complex; numerous cellular mutations must align for it to become a fully malignant disease. Thus, various attributes can be targeted for treatment.
Jacobsen: So, you agree with the AI’s assessment that we will see improved cancer treatments?
Rosner: It’s often said that cancer isn’t one disease but hundreds of different ones. We’re likely to develop more methods to disrupt the growth cycles of these cancers, make it harder for them to metastasize, or prevent metastasized cells from embedding in other parts of the body. This will result in more points of attack and a wider range of treatable cancers.
Take kidney cancer, for instance. It’s challenging because, while it doesn’t metastasize frequently when small, even a tumor up to 4 or 7 centimeters may still be considered “small” and manageable. Other cancers, however, can spread at any stage. Kidney cancer also has mechanisms that disable immune cells in its vicinity, making immune therapies less effective and complicating treatment if it spreads
There’s a drug called Keytruda that is effective against many types of cancer, including kidney cancer. However, it’s one of those treatments that, at best, reduces the risk of recurrence or progression by about 40%. It’s not a cure, and it comes with significant side effects. Cancer will continue to be a major issue for several decades because it encompasses a wide range of different diseases. I don’t think we’re at the stage where we have treatments that can reduce the lethality of all cancers by 50%. Some types of cancer are highly treatable, while others remain extremely lethal.
Pancreatic cancer is a prime example of this. If it’s not detected until symptoms appear, the prognosis is often poor.
Jacobsen: So, moving on to the next question. What was the main point you noted from ChatGPT’s response? Let’s discuss the first claim regarding quantum computing breakthroughs.
Quantum computing is expected to achieve significant advancements that will allow for faster processing speeds. This, in turn, could facilitate more complex data analysis, advanced simulations, and potential breakthroughs in cryptographic sciences, material science, and drug discovery.
That’s an intriguing field. What do you see as the main challenges with quantum computing?
Rosner: There are two primary issues. First, building stable quantum systems with more than a few qubits is challenging. Quantum computers are so powerful that even a system with only a handful of qubits can perform substantial tasks. However, to unlock their full potential, you need a system that can maintain a greater number of qubits. The inherent problem is that quantum systems are unstable—you’re trying to sustain an isolated and indeterminate state until the computation is complete.
The second problem lies in structuring tasks so they’re suitable for quantum computation. Quantum computing excels at problems like the traveling salesman problem, but there are numerous other complex problems that need to be adapted to leverage quantum capabilities.
You mentioned ChatGPT’s other comments—could you recap them?
Jacobsen: ChatGPT referenced applications in cryptography, material science, and drug discovery through advanced simulations and data analysis. Cryptography is particularly significant. There’s a classic example from the 1980s: creating an unbreakable encryption key by multiplying two large prime numbers. It was believed that factoring such a product would take millions of years with conventional computing. However, quantum computing, with its ability to process many calculations simultaneously, could potentially crack these codes, making what was once secure, breakable.
That would be revolutionary—and a potential security risk.
Rosner: Didn’t a couple of researchers win the Nobel Prize in medicine for utilizing AI to figure out how to fold proteins precisely as desired?
So, once again, this appears to be a good problem for quantum computing—designing scenarios where you’re running an enormous number of possible combinations simultaneously. In a quantum system, what would traditionally take hundreds of years could potentially be done in mere seconds. That makes sense based on what ChatGPT indicated. Over the past decade, brute-force substance testing has relied more on robotics than AI. Robots can create thousands of miniature petri dishes, each containing problematic cells.
The robots can handle the repetitive task of placing thousands of different substances into those petri dishes, which would take humans an incredible amount of time. This process has essentially reduced the reliance on human intuition to identify potentially effective substances. Instead, every possible substance is tested because automation makes it feasible. ChatGPT’s point suggests that, with quantum systems, instead of physically testing thousands of substances, you could simulate millions of tests. If the substances could be characterized in a way that allows quantum computing to simulate them, then testing a million substances becomes realistic within a reasonable time frame.
Genes essentially code for the creation of proteins with specific shapes, and in biology, structure is everything. If you aim to develop a library of millions of potential protein shapes for various applications, quantum computing could be ideal for this kind of task. ChatGPT’s first prediction was that AI would become universally adopted, which is hard to dispute.
Jacobsen: True, although the term “AI” is often misapplied. There’s a lot of simple autocomplete functionality labeled as AI.
Rosner: One could argue that AI is fundamentally about autocomplete. For example, when you train a graphics AI by inputting a vast number of art pieces, it essentially turns a text prompt into an autocomplete task, providing the most likely artistic rendition of what your words describe.
Jacobsen: Would you say a better term for AI might be “virtually unlimited autofill”?
Rosner: Yes, that’s a fair assessment. It captures the essence of how it functions—essentially an expansive version of autocomplete.
Jacobsen: I see where this is leading. You’re suggesting that even in areas like AI-generated adult content, there are intricacies in user commands that push AI to understand context and commands more deeply.
Rosner: When people pay for AI-generated adult content, they can input highly detailed prompts that cater to specific preferences. An AI-generated scenario might involve one character engaging in an act and another walking in unexpectedly. Clearly, someone programmed these prompts because they’re recurring themes in image sets.
You can see how AI progressively learns how doors, door frames, and perspectives work. At first, characters may appear stuck halfway through a door, or proportions might be incorrect. But as the AI continues training, these details improve. It eventually understands perspective better and can render scenes where the person walking in appears smaller due to distance. AI has repeatedly refined aspects like shadows through what is essentially Bayesian analysis of the most probable scenarios.
Jacobsen: So, it’s like watching the AI learn through trial and error, guided by patterns and probabilities?
Rosner: It’s a continuous learning process based on data-driven refinements. AI doesn’t truly “know” anything—we’re aware of that. It doesn’t think as humans do, but it operates on statistical foundations for how things behave. For instance, it has a statistical basis for understanding the behavior of shadows and the principles of perspective. What makes images appear realistic—or conversely, unnervingly unrealistic—often comes down to details like the eye line. I’ve observed AI in this specific context, and while it manages to get the eye line of the main subject correct, it struggles with the person in the background. In scenarios where someone is caught in an act and reacts with surprise, the foreground figure often looks fine, but the background character frequently ends up with mismatched or misaligned eyes, where one eye might be larger or pointing in the wrong direction. It’s interesting to watch AI slowly improve and start getting these details right.
Jacobsen: So, it’s like a process where the AI is learning to handle nuanced visual details over time?
Rosner: But ultimately, AI is just autofill. And yes, autofill is something we rely on for everything. In a sense, our own brains function with a kind of autofill. When we speak, we don’t think out every single word meticulously; we start the sentence, and our brain fills in the rest. Unless, of course, we’re writing something meticulous, like an essay for The Atlantic, where every word is scrutinized.
So, moving forward, you could say that we’re going to be using this type of “autofill” constantly. And that leads to the point of learning statistics. AI relies heavily on Bayesian statistics, and while I can say that confidently, explaining how feedback across neural networks functions would take more time. But for the sake of simplicity, yes.
Jacobsen: Makes sense. Should we use that as a metaphor for summarizing this?
Rosner: Sure, let’s go with this for now.
Jacobsen: Do we need another call, or are we good for now?
Rosner: No, I still need to head back to the gym one more time.
Jacobsen: Then I’ll take a quick break and continue writing. Thank you very much.
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.
Jacobsen: How is your wife and family? How is it to see your kids again?
In-Sight Publishing 